Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

A drink. Minister Robb was telling us—this will be very interesting to people from Tasmania, too, because there are some very good private health providers in Tasmania—that, for the first time, under this free trade agreement, and of course Senator Sinodinos is well aware of this, an Australian-based company could purchase land, build an aged care facility, staff it, manage it and repatriate the funds back to Australia. The same thing could be repeated in the hospitality industry or, for example, in the higher education sector. So there are opportunities in the services sector of the free trade agreement. You might ask where this is relevant to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and it is relevant because it is building up that level of confidence and that level of interoperability between our Asian neighbours and ourselves, which indeed goes towards complementing this whole activity.

We do know that some in America were concerned about the decision that Australia was making to participate in and become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That is all well and good, but again the question was asked by you, Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, when you made your contribution: will this provide the opportunity for Australian investment in infrastructure in Asia. An example is the Thai-Lao Friendship Bridge that was completed in 1994—I believe Mr Keating may have been the Prime Minister at the time—a structure funded by Australia and built by that wonderful Western Australian company John Holland Construction. The impact that that bridge has had socially, culturally, economically and commercially on the border between Laos and Thailand has been phenomenal. It reminds me to make the observation that, because of the intertwining of aid and trade at that time, Thailand was a recipient country—it was receiving aid. But because of the focus of that aid partially at least on the trade space, we now see Thailand no longer as an aid dependent country but as a contributor. That surely must be the goal we move towards. How will this be partially funded? Through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Often there is criticism in this place about the efforts of Foreign Minister Bishop, arguably the best foreign minister this country has ever had, certainly for the last decade or so. Minister Bishop's focus in the aid space is twofold.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I am sure Senator Cameron will want to take notes so he will not make a fool of himself in the future. The first aim is to allocate 20 per cent of the aid budget specifically into the aid for trade sector, emphasising the opportunity for people in developing countries not just to be given aid, not just to be given the fish, but to be taught how to fish. As has happened with Thailand, they can be moved out of that dependence on aid. The second has been the initiative of Minister Bishop, led by Bloomberg, the recently retired mayor of New York, to put together a group who can look at the effectiveness and efficiency of aid expenditure around the world, using Australia as a pilot and hopefully extending that to get much better value for aid recipients.

I am delighted and proud to support this bill and to urge my colleagues in the Senate to give it their full support for the 40- to 50- to 100-year future of our relationship with Asia.