Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that a simple resolution is currently before the United States Senate in the name of Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland and 13 other United States Senators reaffirming a strong commitment to the United States-Australia alliance relationship;

(2) reaffirms the strong alliance relationship between Australia and the United States;

(3) supports continued diplomatic, military and economic cooperation between Australia and the United States; and

(4) reaffirms the importance of a United States-Australia relationship based on mutual respect befitting a close and longstanding alliance partner crucial to the preservation of Australia's national interests in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world.

If you have ever watched track and field events at the Olympics and if you are familiar with the four-by-100-metres relay—an event historically dominated by the United States, by the way—you would know that the manoeuvre of transferring the baton from one runner to another is tricky and those baton transfers are points in the race carefully followed by the crowd and also the commentariat. The transfer of power from President Obama to President Trump reminded me of such a race. There was much confused speculation by the commentariat in the lead-up and following the inauguration, including here locally after that now famous phone conversation between the new President and Prime Minister Turnbull.

Of course, the panic merchants and nervous nellies had their say on the future of the United States under the new President and, indeed, the future of the United States-Australia alliance. James Curran, from the United States Studies Centre, suggested the Australian government may potentially be 'trading away key national security interests' and warned that if the government is 'prepared to kowtow', 'it doesn't augur well for the ANZUS alliance'. Meanwhile Peter Jennings, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, told the ABC, 'Australia should consider a freezing of the alliance, a sort of lull in alliance cooperation.' Then, on 7.30, the former foreign minister in the Gillard Labor government, Bob Carr, in his limitless wisdom, claimed the US President did not 'regard ANZUS as a useful starting point for the Australian-American relationship' and further suggested that Australia should 'reflect on its "special relationship" with the United States'.

It was in this swirl of claim and counterclaim, tweet and countertweet, that the sensible circuit-breakers on both sides of the Pacific quickly cut in to calm elements of the media who seemed determined to blow the situation out of reasonable proportion. Supporting sentiments expressed by our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, ranking Republicans in the United States such as Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, together with Senator Marco Rubio, joined with other senators—13 in all—to support a resolution in the name of Democrat Senator for Maryland and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Ben Cardin, reaffirming a strong commitment to the United States-Australia alliance relationship.

Historically, Australian governments of both persuasions have acknowledged that Australia's alliance with the United States—signed on 1 September 1951 and coming into full force the following year, at the height of the Korean War, with the memories of World War II still very raw in the national consciousness—has been, and continues to be, the cornerstone of our strategic architecture. The United States is Australia's principal long-term strategic partner and also our foremost investment partner, with US investment providing much of the rich flow of foreign capital that our country needs.

Australia sees a strong and active US presence in the Indo-Pacific and a robust alliance relationship as key to underwriting continued peace and security in our region. We have benefited greatly from the United States as a security guarantor and exemplar of an international rules-based order which has delivered the stability needed for freedom and prosperity to flourish. Clearly the future is unknown and the present is not without its challenges, challenges such as the threat of terrorism and a shifting geopolitical landscape; however, Australia and our neighbours are in a far better place to tackle these challenges by working closely with the United States, rather than contemplating any alternative paradigm.

I want to acknowledge the words of US Senator John McCain from earlier this year:

… Australia is one of America's oldest friends and staunchest allies. We are united by ties of family and friendship, mutual interests and common values, and shared sacrifice in wartime.

Today in this chamber, via this motion, we reciprocate the generous sentiments endorsed by members of the US Senate by expressing the same ourselves, by expressing sentiments of mutual respect, common endeavour and brotherhood of purpose with the United States. The United States is indeed our staunchest ally. The United States is our friend.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve the right to speak.

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

I rise to support the resolution reaffirming the US-Australia alliance relationship and see it as an opportunity to reflect on the nature of our alliance—what underpins it and what it brings to each partner—and to share a few thoughts. We often hear talk of the strong friendship between our nations which underpins the alliance, and I believe this operates at multiple levels, as was touched on at the end of my colleague's remarks—three types of friendship, if you like.

The first is the unsentimental perception of friendship in the more realist tradition of international relations—where you have no real friends, just overlap of interests, which may be transient or which may last for decades or centuries. In this regard, our interests certainly still align. Secondly, there is the deeper level of shared values: transparency; accountability; democracy, however imperfect; a set of ideals; and equity—'a fair go', in our lingo.

Of course, we are not the same. I will say without hesitation that Australia, in my view, is a better society. Our focus on the common wealth, on the provision of the public good and universal services and so on is, to my mind, a better way of living than the focus we see at some ends of American society, on extreme individualism. But we certainly overlap enough to say we share values, although we may express them differently. And, far rarer in such relationships, we share a mutual sentimentality too, a genuine warmth, having fought and died together for a certain kind of freedom over many years, in many wars. I think it is important to have a clear-eyed view of these distinct aspects, though, lest we confuse warmth and shared history with current and future interests. That would be a dangerous sentimentality.

Reflecting then, Australia gains much beyond the important, if narrow, commitment under ANZUS to consult in the event of a threat. We have the ability to speak to the US at the highest levels when required, as a trusted ally and friend. The alliance with the US transcends individual administrations. It is difficult to overstate the value of the intelligence aspect of the alliance. Cyber is posing profound challenges to the security of nation-states. Cyber is a new vector of war in an information age. It is both an enabler of the traditional land, sea and air domains and, increasingly, a theatre in its own right. There is the capability that we get from the alliance—technology sharing, interoperability and credibility earned over many years. This capacity and our track record—people know we will fight for shared values—gain us a measure of respect in the region and elsewhere.

That said, I firmly reject any sense that we should ever just do what the US says. That is not in our national interest. It is not what a good partner does. The mess that the Howard government led us into in Iraq is the starkest modern example of that. It is important that Australia is able to articulate precisely where we stand and, as a result, cause our close friend to at least reflect and understand a different point of view, even if it is not always shared. We must pull our intellectual weight, and our views must always be an affirmation of our identity. If we are clear-eyed and direct, the US then can gain an Australian perspective, because they cannot, and can never, have our optics as a small country. In that regard, we speak from the perspective of most countries in the world—we are pragmatic and we are not overly idealistic.

Geography these days is not quite destiny. Technology has shrunk the world and moderated its previous overwhelming influence. But it is reality, and the reality of our geography—being located at the bottom of Asia while being a close ally and friend of the US—is unique. It provides much to the US that is of value. There is the geographical space for forces and assets—whether that is in Darwin or at Pine Gap or other critical infrastructure. There is the continuity of technology and interoperability. We are a high-end, tier 1 military partner in this part of the world, and that is of value. We are highly adaptable. We give credibility in international spheres—diplomatic support, if you like. Again, there is a credible critique that Prime Minister Howard effectively rented the US our flag, given he went to Iraq but then limited the rules of engagement so much, to limit real exposure. And we can be an honest friend—not 'all the way with LBJ'. Labor has a long and proud history of being a steadfast supporter of the US alliance while being better able to critique and articulate our national interest, such as coming to the table in Vietnam. This will be important in coming years.

I will close by observing that, increasingly, we have to bring an Asian understanding. Part of our optics that is of value comes from our orientation towards Asia. Our relationships with South-East Asia and the broader region are critical. We must remain curious and intelligent and learn through a growing cultural sensibility. We are Australians; we say what we think but, hopefully, with a bit of an Asian face. If geography is reality and a key determinant of our national interest, we must also remember that the alliance is but one pillar of our foreign policy—the language of 'cornerstone' somewhat worries me—and it is coupled with our commitment to multilateral institutions, a global rules based order and our connections in the region.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate my friend the member for Fairfax on bringing this motion to the Federation Chamber today. It is a motion moved within one month of the 65th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty coming into force. In preparation for my remarks today, I re-read Sir Robert Menzies' remarks to the US House of Representatives when he spoke to them in the middle of the negotiations for that treaty. The ANZUS Treaty is a very important piece of our global international security and has provided a great deal of security and stability for the entire Pacific. It has reminded us that Australia and New Zealand do not stand alone in the Pacific; that we will coordinate efforts with the United States for a more comprehensive system of regional security; that each country is to develop its own capacity to resist armed attack; that we work together against the common danger of armed attack; and that we work together and consult when the territorial integrity or the political independence and security of the US or Australia is threatened, and that includes our island territories or our military forces.

The US alliance has underwritten our regional stability and our security. It is central to the peace and stability of our region. The US has acted as a security guarantor and instigator of the rules based order, bringing stability and generating the conditions for prosperity. Australia works with the US in our region on a range of issues including counter-terrorism, building capacity to counter violent extremism, addressing the problem of returning foreign terrorist fighters, and maritime security. The US is our most significant trade and investment partner. I had the privilege of living in the United States for some period and I can reflect that Americans do feel a great deal of kinship with us, and that kinship was actually bolstered by the recent commitments that Australia made in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is unsurprising that senators in the United States Congress decided to move a motion supporting the US alliance.

The coalition has always supported the US alliance. It has been our consistent policy since the time of ANZUS. Indeed, the Labor Party has some history in this space, of which they should be proud. John Curtin, during World War II, sought to reach out to America free of any of the pangs of the traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. I can hear members opposite quite excited to remind me of that. Labor's history in relation to the US alliance is not a completely unblemished set of records. I think it is important that often they tell us that Australia should have an independent foreign policy, as if we have anything other than that. Australian governments always make decisions about Australian foreign policy that are in Australia's best interests. In the same way, people are quite surprised to hear President Trump say that America will have an America-first policy, as if America would have anything other than that; as if Australia would have anything other than an Australia-first policy.

There has been always been a strain of thinking on the Left that does not like Australia being part of the Western alliance. An 'independent foreign policy' is code for Australia not being part of the Western alliance but being part the old, nonaligned movement. I think particularly of the Whitlam years which were effectively the great demonstration of this policy in action. It was a period of time when we were the only democratic country in the world to recognise the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states, when we were one of the first nations to recognise Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, when we were one of the first nations to establish diplomatic relations with East Germany, when we sought admission to the non-aligned movement at the sponsorship of Tito's regime in Yugoslavia, when the then Victorian state secretary of the Labor Party, Bill Hartley, said:

We are looking forward to the possibility this year that the—

Labor Party—

Federal Conference will jettison the American alliance and other overseas commitments and join the third world.

Gough Whitlam told the House on 13 December 1973:

We are no longer a cipher or a satellite in world affairs ... We are no longer a colonial power. We are no longer out of step with the world's progressive and enlightened movements towards freedom, disarmament and co-operation.

That was not the US alliance; that was the Whitlam government moving us towards the independent non-aligned foreign policy that many on the Left and many in the Labor Party still hope for.

We saw another demonstration of this just recently with the former Labor Prime Minister, Paul Keating, in November, the former Labor foreign minister, Bob Carr, and the former Labor leader, Mark Latham—the most irresponsible person ever to lead a political party in the history of this country; he was chosen by the Labor Party to lead them—all lining up to wipe their boots on the US alliance, and we see this again and again. It is not just retired parliamentarians who have said this. Tanya Plibersek and the shadow foreign minister, Penny Wong, have talked about the nature of the independent foreign policy. We on this side of the House will always support the US alliance because the US alliance is in Australia's best interests. The same cannot be said for those opposite.

David Feeney (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in support of this resolution, and I congratulate the member for bringing it before the House. The contribution of the previous speaker reminds me of the old adage: if you want to talk about fighting communism, you join the Liberal Party; if you actually want to fight communism, you join the Labor Party. This is a resolution where previous speakers have already expounded upon the fact that there are strong military relationships, shared history, shared values and a strong kinship. All of that is true. But the resolution also speaks of mutual respect. In the treatment by President Trump of Prime Minister Turnbull I think that mutual respect lapsed. It is simply a matter of fact that when it comes to the president of the United States dealing with the leader of Australia, irrespective of which party they lead—in that context they lead our nation—we expect that person to be treated properly and with respect. That was a very unfortunate signpost and a very unfortunate beginning to the relationship with the new American administration.

Throughout my career I have been a staunch supporter of the alliance with the United States, and that has been true in the counsels of the trade union movement and of the Labor Party. I remain a staunch supporter. But we have to acknowledge that the relationship is under strain. Of course that is why this resolution has been brought forward. In acknowledging that strain, we have to acknowledge that the alliance, while of course it must be an institution that survives the ebb and flow of different administrations in different countries, is facing very real challenges—challenges of the moment and longer term challenges.

We must speak truth to power and we must speak truth to crazy. We see in President Trump a spiral of leadership which potentially has very unfortunate consequences for our nation. President Trump has brought to the body politic of the United States an unprecedented level of falsehood—statements such as that Ted Cruz's father helped kill President Kennedy; that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower; that there were some three to five million illegal votes cast in the recent US election; mocking the disabled. We saw his National Security Adviser Flynn forced to resign because of contact he had with the Russians. And, most recently, we saw the FBI director confirm that that agency began investigating the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia from July 2016. We have a president of the United States whose own party often seeks to distance itself from him. The resolution being brought forward in the US Senate, which is absolutely welcome and a joy to see, was of course brought forward in the context of those senators wanting to reassure Australia in the context of the behaviour of their president.

We saw an appalling attack by President Trump on Senator John McCain, when he described him as not being a war hero because of course he had been captured by the enemy—a disgraceful set of remarks. And we see continuing attacks on the fourth estate, denigrating his critics as 'fake news'. Even legislative oversight is denounced by President Trump: John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was denounced by President Trump when he—as is, of course, his legislative role—asked questions of the administration concerning military action in Yemen. Also we see judicial oversight scorned, with the President referring to 'so-called judges', denigrating and undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary in the United States.

What this adds up to is the fact that the United States, the arsenal of freedom in our world, has now entered into a domestic political discourse which unnerves its allies. When the President of the United States talks about 'America first', he is not talking about anything other than pursuing self-interest in a Westphalian nation-state system. That might be perfectly reasonable behaviour, but it does mean the United States is moving away from what has long been its global mission of exceptionalism, where it has talked about doing more than pursuing its own interest. When they called for Gorbachev to pull down the Berlin Wall, they were not simply seeking their self-interest; they were speaking to shared values about promoting democracy and fighting tyranny. We now see Trump changing that political discourse and changing in a way which unnerves America's allies.

The world needs the United States. United States is now asking itself the question, does it need the world? A US retreat into isolationism is something that we should be very concerned about indeed. It is the United States which has questioned its alliances. It is President Trump and his tweeting that has questioned the existence of NATO, the alliance with Japan and the burden-sharing that the US has around the world. These questions have been put before us not by the Greens and not by Labor voices but, ultimately, by President Trump himself. (Time expired)

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion raised by the member for Wide Bay—noting, in particular, the resolution of Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland and 13 other United States senators who moved a resolution in the United States Senate reaffirming a strong commitment to the United States-Australia alliance.

A previous contributor made a point about John Curtin. It is fair to say, in this place, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that the relationship Curtin had with the United States was quite pivotal in what followed, in our relationship with them, in the world order, post the Second World War. I note that in December it was the 75th anniversary of one of the most momentous developments in Australian foreign policy, when Labor Prime Minister John Curtin made his famous turn to America during one of the darkest times in America's history.

According to the John Curtin Prime Ministerial Library, writing three weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor Prime Minister Curtin's new year's message to the Australian people, published in The Melbourne Herald on 27 December 1941, Curtin said:

Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.

This statement was not uncontroversial at the time. Despite the statement being criticised by the British, Curtin's initiative boosted Australia's defences against the threat of invasion. It laid the ground for the post-war ANZUS Treaty of 1951 and it forged an alliance that has been central to Australia's foreign policy and defence strategy ever since and will remain so.

I am deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and will talk about our intelligence linkages in a second. As a member of parliament what most viscerally reminds me of the deep and abiding connection that we have with United States, particularly in matters of defence and strategic interests, is the honour I had of being flown onto the deck of the USS Carl Vinsonwhich is currently around the South China Sea—in 2003. It had come off a deployment in Iraq.

Landing on an aircraft carrier is a very interesting experience, particularly in a 16-foot swell, but we did. There was one person in uniform next to me who intrigued me, at the back of what is called a Cat, a plane that carries aircraft parts. It is loud and you sit facing backwards. We had five attempted landings and, on the fifth, we got there, so it was a pretty interesting experience. I was also intrigued by the way in which we were treated when we got off this fully operational aircraft carrier in the far northwest of Western Australia.

What happened—and, particularly, learning the history after we were catapulted off—was two things. One was that the person who was feted by the Americans as soon as he got off the plane was Duncan Lewis, then a Brigadier General in the SAS, and we were working with the Americans to paint targets against the Taliban. The second was that the first strikes post September 11 were launched off the deck of the USS Carl Vinson.

It was the shared history, dialogue, friendship and our shared values, in a discussion like that, which confirmed the closeness that we have with the United States and why our strategic interests will always be very similar—because of the same core values that we bring. We are both democratic countries. We are situated in different parts of the world, but those core values remain the same, regardless of any hiccups with any leader of any political party or whatever. It is those deep institutionalised bonds, the person-to-person contact, that underpins this alliance and, regardless of the media reports, will continue to underpin the alliance for a very long time.

I would also like to talk about the intelligence connection we have. We are part of a Five Eyes intelligence arrangement, one of the closest we share information on in our war against terror and our war against other countries that might do us harm. I declare in this chamber that I have been over to the CIA twice, in 2011 and 2016, and dealt with people there in my capacity as deputy chair, and I would say there is almost no closer relationship than Australia and the US, particularly with respect to intelligence sharing. And that will grow. Regardless of what has been said, that will continue to grow and develop and evolve.

So talk of the US alliance and its demise is incredibly premature. It is not in Australia's strategic interests for it to evolve into some pathways people have put forward. It will continue, again, because we are a people with very common values, with shared interests, with a desire to have peace and order and stability in this region. I certainly look forward to playing my part in that as a parliamentarian in this place.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has expired; I thank the member for Holt. There being no further speakers at this time, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.