http://www.andrewrobb.com.au RSS feeds for Andrew Robb MP - Federal Member for Goldstein 60 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1504/Speech--ADC-Future-Summit-on-China.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1504 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1504&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1504/Speech--ADC-Future-Summit-on-China.aspx Address to the ADC Forum Future Summit 2013 Tuesday, 23 April 2013 Expanding the possibilities of the China-Australia Relationship Ladies and gentlemen, China is a good friend of Australia and it can be a better one.   Since Deng Xiaoping first introduced market reforms and opened China to the world, Australian governments of both sides have striven consistently to cultivate the best possible relations with China, based on mutual trust and respect.   Should the Coalition win the next election, we will again take that approach.   The Liberal-National Coalition has a long and proud tradition of supporting closer links with our neighbourhood while at the same time maintaining in good repair and building Australia’s relations with our traditional friends and allies.   It was Prime Minister Menzies, after all, who first referred to South East Asia as the ‘near north’ rather than the ‘far east’ as well as pioneering the Colombo Plan and signing the Australia-Japan trade agreement. The Holt government ended the White Australia policy. The Fraser government began large-scale Asian immigration. And the Howard government dramatically boosted trade with China, achieved free trade deals with Asian friends and deepened partnerships throughout the region.    The next Coalition is committed to bold and fresh new policies which will build on that proud record.   The Coalition plans to build on the success of the original Colombo Plan with policies which will deepen our relations with our neighbours by developing closer familiarity with their cultures, languages and way of life.   Our aim would be the revival of not just Asian languages but foreign language study in general.  Nevertheless, given the importance of our Asian engagement an important part of that commitment would be a concerted effort to encourage the revival of the study of the Asian languages.   The Coalition’s policy of reviving the study of foreign languages meshes with our commitment to establish a new two-way Colombo Plan within two years of taking office, preceded by a pilot program within our first year.    Under this new plan, not only would we continue to invite the best and the brightest of our region to Australia where they can form enduring bonds of friendship and learn from us; but, conscious that we should better appreciate not just how much Australia can give our neighbours but how much they can give to us, we would return the compliment.   Our best and brightest would also go to our Asian and Pacific neighbours to learn from them to increase our cultural familiarity with our neighbourhood, to develop fresh insights into how Australia’s relations with the region might be further deepened and to open up a new generation of networks that Australia can draw upon in the future.    Last December, I spent several days in Hong Kong examining various ways in which a Coalition government could further advance the pipe-line role that Hong Kong is playing in regard to both trade into mainland China and investment, tourism and trade from mainland China into Australia.   Among many insights and ideas that I gleaned, two opportunities were raised with me repeatedly.   The first related to the great regard in which high quality food products are held and the second related to the extraordinary demand and regard for a wide range of Australian services.   So many business people and officials raised with me China’s new five year plan and its target for growth in services, at 4 per cent a year.    When I first appeared unimpressed by the 4 per cent target, an ex-pat Australian suggested I convert that services growth target into actual opportunities.  It is huge.   And, during that week I discovered that the Chinese have an extremely high regard for the quality of our services.  ‘Brand Australia’ is extremely powerful across so many services from project management, to engineering, legal, educational, health, ageing, architecture, all trades, agriculture, water management, hospitality services, and so many others.   If China is to succeed in developing a mature domestic market, seeing a revolution in the evolution in these service skills is critical.  To this end, immediate opportunity exists for Australians.   As well, we are in the same geographic region.   The advantage of being in the same time zone is seldom recognised but can’t be emphasised enough.   I have run the Australian arm of a major global company headquartered in the eastern states of the U.S.A. Believe me, you tire very quickly of regular 27 hour each way trips, and of constant conference calls in the middle of the night.   By contrast, I have also run a company focussed on the Asian region. Overnight flights to and fro, and telephone and electronic contact in roughly the same time zone bring enormous efficiencies and advantages, not least of which is quality of life and impact on families.   But these opportunities won’t fall into our laps; the rest of the world has recognised the opportunity, Beijing is closer to Frankfurt than it is to Sydney so, if we don't take the opportunity, others will.   With regards to services, China's demand for international education is also an evolving story.   Again, capacity constraints including fierce student competition for limited domestic places present enormous challenges.   Economic growth and increasing incomes have put overseas study within the reach of many.   There is also a keen appetite for western educational experiences.   Chinese government data shows that as of 2011 there were 339,700 Chinese students studying abroad, an increase of 19 per cent on 2010.   Between 1978 and 2011 a total of 2.2 million Chinese have studied abroad.   And the related trend to online learning won't go away; in fact it is accelerating dramatically. In the United States close to 10 per cent of tertiary students in 2003 took at least one online course. That percentage grew to 25 per cent in 2008, nearly 30 per cent in 2009 and is forecast to be 50 per cent by 2014.   China's embrace of online technology is underlined by projections that 45 per cent of the population will have Internet access by 2015.   This will also bring new demand for content and opportunities to train and educate the workforce required to drive growth in an ageing population.   Given the high regard and the fascination among younger Chinese for western products and experiences, those without the means to physically study or train abroad may increasingly turn to international online offerings, or online combined with shorter, more affordable international experiences.   Australian Universities and VET colleges in general, and many individually, have a stellar global reputation and they have an exciting opportunity to capitalise on transformative technology to digitise and distribute their content.   Proudly, Australia has played an important part in the rise of China.   With the government, the Coalition welcomed the recent 40th anniversary of the Australia-China diplomatic relationship.   Perhaps the export of iron ore has come to symbolise the strength of our modern day relationship with China.   It was September 1973 that Conzinc Riotinto of Australia made its first shipment of 22,000 tonnes of lump ore from Hamersley Basin in the Pilbara to China on the ship, Stolt Vista.   Since then Rio Tinto alone has exported well over one billion tonnes of iron ore to China.   Now our iron ore furnishes much of China’s steel, our coal and gas now powers much of its industry, and our universities and colleges help to train many of its people.   Before entering the Parliament in 2004, I personally had the great experience of being a member of Chevron’s investment team on the Gorgon Gas Project off the North West Shelf, and in that capacity also had an involvement with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), which led later to a Chinese commitment to buy $50 billion worth of natural gas from the project.   Of course, that CNOOC involvement – just 10 short years ago - was a forerunner of many subsequent sales, investments and major joint ventures from Chinese energy and resource companies, irrevocably locking in the relationship we enjoy today.   In just over 30 years, hundreds of millions of Chinese have prospered, and increasingly enjoyed the freedoms, the self esteem and sense of fulfilment that comes with growth and development.   The people of China have become better educated, more thoroughly informed and more widely travelled.   This has been a great watershed in human development as well as one of the most remarkable economic transformations in human history.   While Australia’s attitude on some issues may differ to China’s, our approach to managing differences is anchored by respect, and aims at being constructive and based on dialogue.   Thanks to China, the world now enjoys reliable and inexpensive consumer goods plus the benefits of selling its own products and services into an increasingly sophisticated Chinese market.   Our friendship with China is more recent than that with Japan and less developed than that with the United States but it is increasingly important for us and far from insignificant for the Chinese.   Australia has never made the mistake of thinking that becoming better friends with one country automatically means becoming worse friends with another.   It’s important to appreciate that the relationship between Australia and China hasn’t simply been an economic one.   Modern Australia is an immigrant society to which Chinese people have been coming almost since the foundation of European settlement.   Today 700,000 Australians have Chinese ancestry.   China is now Australia’s most important trading partner but the Coalition is ambitious to achieve more.   The Howard government negotiated a deal to deliver gas from the North-West Shelf to China, by far our biggest ever commercial deal to that time.   It was also the last Coalition government that began negotiations on a free trade agreement with China. At the time, it was the first free trade agreement that China had embarked upon with a major developed country.    Since then, New Zealand has successfully concluded its FTA in just three years while Australia’s agreement remains a work-in-progress, recently entering the ninth year of negotiations. An incoming Coalition government would make pursuit of this agreement a high priority.   The Coalition also welcomes the government’s recent announcement that from now on there will be annual summits between the Australian prime minister and the Chinese premier – although it needs to be pointed out that such an agreement had already been reached during the visit to Australia of President Jang Zemin during the period of the Howard government.   Foreign investment has been fundamental to Australia’s development since European settlement, and its importance will continue.  As such, an incoming Coalition government would welcome Chinese investment on the same basis that we welcome investment from other countries.   It would, of course, have to pass a national interest test and the scrutiny of the Foreign Investment Review Board.   The Board looks very carefully at sovereign investment but it does that for all countries, not just China. It would rarely be in Australia’s national interest to allow a foreign government or its agencies to control an Australian business.   That’s because we don’t support the nationalisation of business by the Australian government, let alone by a foreign one.   Still, for every bid that the Board turns down, such as the Singapore stock exchange’s attempted take over of the ASX, there are literally dozens of investments that are approved (often with conditions like keeping an Australian headquarters and directors) such as Yancoal’s recent merger with Gloucester Coal Ltd.   As I’ve already said geography won’t keep Australia prosperous even in the coming Asian century. Australia’s moment could easily be missed through complacency.   Hence, an incoming Coalition government would repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax, cut $1 billion a year from business compliance costs and boost workplace productivity.   We wouldn’t neglect the development of Northern Australia, which could be a food bowl for Asia; and much more; to this end, the Coalition will shortly release a position paper based on over two years of consultation.   A Coalition government will be focused on the potential in the north, as well as realising much greater output from already developed areas.   Australia could become the high quality, high gross margin ‘food bowl’ for Asia.  We currently feed 60 million people a year and our agricultural technology helps feed 400 million.  With sensible water catchment and deployment of the latest agricultural and soil management techniques as well as transport and logistics technology, Australia could directly feed 120 million, or more, and indirectly help feed, a further 800 million or more with our agriculture know-how and services.   One starting point will be to re-introduce the CSIRO to Australia’s north, and reverse the inexplicable rundown over recent years of research and development funds for agriculture.   In the decades ahead the explosion of wealth in the middle class in China and across Asia, will see a great demand for protein and education but also for health services.  These are the three staples which a well financed community seeks in the first instance.   The demand for our medical and related services will also be prompted by the significant population ageing in the foreseeable future in a range of Asian countries, including China, Korea and Japan.  By contrast, Indonesia and India continue to see rapid increases in population.   Resurgence in manufacturing could occur around high value added manufacturing targeted at these huge emerging niche markets prepared to pay for the best.   This could also involve exploiting the value added opportunities in various resource and energy products, which have not previously been economic.   Australia’s expertise in construction, technology, security, urban design, tourism and a wide range of professional services also have a place at the quality end of these market opportunities.   These opportunities are best seized from a position of economic strength and confidence.   In fact to this end Australia has a moral obligation to make the most of our strengths, such as the many centuries of our resources and energy stocks, our extensive and highly sustainable agricultural and forestry resources, our highly educated and skilled workforce across the professions, the trades, the arts and sports, our increasingly specialised and flexible education sector and our world recognised medical research fraternity.   Leveraging these recognised strengths, and more, would be the focus of a Coalition government’s engagement with China, and the broader region.   Yet Australia’s current vulnerabilities presented by an absence of political leadership, Australia’s burgeoning debt and structural deficits, reckless spending, waste, a raft of new taxes, choking regulations, an inflexible and confrontational union movement, re-nationalisation of our telecommunications sector and various sovereign risk actions has created a crisis of confidence among Australian households and the business sector.  Australia’s appetite for risk and investment has been severely blunted.   To address these vulnerabilities, and to capture the revolution in opportunities in China, and elsewhere on our doorstep, a Coalition government would live within its means, provide steady and responsible leadership, reverse the ‘government knows best’ nanny state approach, restore a culture of personal responsibility and very importantly, back our strengths.   These principles are the philosophical ‘tram tracks’ that are shaping the Coalition’s agenda if we get the privilege of Government; an agenda heavily focused on realising our potential involvement with China and beyond. Andrew Robb Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1504 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1464/ADDRESS-ON-THE-40TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-DIPLOMATIC-RELATIONS-WITH-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1464 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1464&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1464/ADDRESS-ON-THE-40TH-ANNIVERSARY-OF-DIPLOMATIC-RELATIONS-WITH-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.aspx ADDRESS ON THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GREAT HALL, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA Madame Liu Yandong, and the many distinguished members of your delegation, Prime Minister of Australia, my ministerial and parliamentary colleagues, distinguished guest, Ladies and Gentlemen. On behalf of the Opposition, it is my great privilege to warmly welcome this anniversary, an anniversary which highlights four decades of dramatic development in the relationship between Australia and China – to the point where China is among Australia’s most important international partnerships. Australians are immensely impressed with China’s great strides in recent decades.    In just over 30 years, hundreds of millions of Chinese have prospered, and increasingly enjoyed the freedoms, the self esteem and sense of fulfilment that comes with growth and development.   The people of China have become better educated, more thoroughly informed and more widely travelled.   And China is tracking to be the world’s largest economy, perhaps within two decades.   This has been a great watershed in human development as well as one of the most remarkable economic transformations in human history.   While Australia’s attitude on some issues may differ to China’s, our approach to managing differences is anchored by respect, and aims at being constructive and based on dialogue.   At the same time we recognise and acknowledge the vast improvement in living standards that Chinese people have enjoyed since the 1970s.   Thanks to China, the world now enjoys reliable and inexpensive consumer goods plus the benefits of selling its own products and services into an increasingly sophisticated Chinese market.   Proudly, Australia has played an important part in the rise of China.   Perhaps the export of iron ore has come to symbolise the strength of our modern day relationship with China.   It was September 1973 that Conzinc Riotinto of Australia made its first shipment of 22,000 tonnes of lump ore from Hamersley Basin in the Pilbara to China on the ship, Stolt Vista.   Since then Rio Tinto alone has exported well over one billion tonnes of iron ore to China.   Now our iron ore furnishes much of China’s steel, our coal and gas now powers much of its industry, and our universities and colleges help to train many of its people.   Before entering the Parliament in 2004, I personally had the great experience of being a member of Chevron’s investment team on the Gorgon Gas Project off the North West Shelf, and in that capacity also had an involvement with the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), which led later to a Chinese commitment to buy $50 billion worth of natural gas from the project.   Of course, that CNOOC involvement – just 10 short years ago - was a forerunner of many subsequent sales, investments and major joint ventures from Chinese energy and resource companies, irrevocably locking in the relationship we are celebrating this evening.   Yet it’s important to appreciate that the relationship between our two countries hasn’t simply been an economic one.   Modern Australia is an immigrant society to which Chinese people have been coming almost since the foundation of European settlement in 1788.   The founder of Australia’s wool industry, John Macarthur, employed Chinese.   The first Chinese person to achieve some prominence was Mak Sai Ying who ran a pub in Sydney in 1829.   Thousands of Chinese joined the gold rushes from the 1850s, feeding Australia’s first resources boom.   By the time the six colonies formed a new Commonwealth, at the turn of the last century, more than 100,000 Chinese had come to Australia.   Over the past fifty years, hundreds of thousands more Chinese people have settled in Australia and today 700,000 Australians have Chinese ancestry. Their emphasis on the importance of family, hard work and education; their business acumen and their instinct, in former Prime Minister’s Menzies’ words, to be, and I quote, “lifters not leaners” – all these characteristics have made them model citizens.   These days, Australians of Chinese background abound in our professions and dominate the academic results of many of our best schools.   Since Deng Xiaoping first introduced market reforms and opened China to the world, Australian governments of both sides have striven consistently to cultivate the best possible relations with China, based on mutual trust and respect.   Should the Coalition win the next election, we will again take that approach.   The Opposition’s Parliamentary leader, Tony Abbott, regrets not being able to attend tonight due to overseas commitments, but he did ask me to tell you that, among other things, he looks forward to repeating an experience during a visit to the Sichuan province when he was Health Minister in the Howard Government, where he was told he was the first Australian MP since Bob Hawke who was allowed to cuddle a baby Panda bear.   Ladies and Gentlemen, China is a good friend of Australia and it can be a better one.   The Coalition joins with the Australian Government in acknowledging this significant anniversary and all those people who made this relationship happen, and we commit to doing whatever we can to build further on our great partnership with China.   Thank you.   Andrew Robb Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:32:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1464 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1460/Transcript-PM-ABC-Radio-National--Governments-decision-to-abstain-from-voting-on-the-resolution-on-Palestinian-observer-status-at-the-United-Nations.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1460 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1460&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1460/Transcript-PM-ABC-Radio-National--Governments-decision-to-abstain-from-voting-on-the-resolution-on-Palestinian-observer-status-at-the-United-Nations.aspx    http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3643117.htm   MARK COLVIN: The Federal Opposition says it's disappointed at the Government's decision to abstain from voting on the resolution on Palestinian observer status at the United Nations. But some in the Coalition go further, and call the decision 'embarrassing' and undermining bipartisan support for Israel.  The Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, says it's not unusual for the two major parties to differ on Middle Eastern matters. But he says that fundamentally the two sides agree on the need for a two-state solution.  From Canberra, Alexandra Kirk reports. ALEXANDRA KIRK: When Australia abstains from voting on the floor of the UN to give the Palestinian Authority observer status, it won't have the Coalition's support. Liberal frontbencher Andrew Robb, whose seat of Goldstein in Melbourne has a significant Jewish community, says the Government's decision seriously undermines bipartisan support for Israel. ANDREW ROBB: It matters crucially that the two sides of politics in Australia remain true to their longstanding convictions in terms of their support for Israel. This non-vote by the Government will be clearly interpreted right across the Middle East as the effective endorsement of the Hamas campaign that we've seen over the last few months of terror and effectively seeking to kill Israeli citizens. ALEXANDRA KIRK: It's a view shared by fellow Liberal Josh Frydenberg from the nearby seat of Kooyong. JOSH FRYDENBERG: I think this is a regrettable decision by the Gillard Government. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Many in the Government who've been strong supporters of Israel now back the Palestinian resolution, adamant it doesn't undermine support for a two-state solution, and warning that to vote 'no' would be not to help the cause of peace. But Mr Frydenberg disagrees: JOSH FRYDENBERG: I'm not saying that the Labor Party and the Labor Government is not a friend of Israel. What I'm saying is that they've made a decision which I think is injurious to Australia's national interest and it doesn't advance the peace prospects in the Middle East. ALEXANDRA KIRK: He says there's been a history of bipartisan support on Australian votes in the UN. JOSH FRYDENBERG: There has been, and I think that's a good thing. But, you know, we don't want to see bad policy, and as I said Alex, this is bad policy and it's a direct undermining of the Prime Minister's authority particularly by her Foreign Minister Bob Carr. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Senator Carr says agreement with the Coalition wasn't possible this time and doesn't think it unusual to be going to the UN without a bipartisan position. BOB CARR: The Howard government took a distinct turn on Middle Eastern policy from 2002 by opting always, whatever the circumstances, to record a vote for Israel. We, since, 2007, 2008, have changed voting on now nine of those regular motions that come up affecting the Middle East in the United Nations, but fundamentally, the two sides of Australian federal politics are agreed: 1) a two-state solution, and; 2) a two-state solution that sees a Palestinian state committed to the safety and the security of Israel, so that Israel's comfortable about living side by side, next door to a Palestinian state. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Wouldn't it have been better, or ideal, to go to the UN on such a symbolically significant resolution with a bipartisan position? BOB CARR: No, Governments make policy and that's happening all over the world now, as governments look at this and make a decision and before the vote expected in a little over 24 hours. I've just got news that France is going to vote 'yes', Austria is going to 'vote' yes, Luxembourg has decided that, the UK - according to reports - is choosing between an abstention, which is where Australia will be, or a 'yes' vote. ALEXANDRA KIRK: What do you say to the Jewish community in Australia who are disappointed by the Government's decision? BOB CARR: I'd say they're talking to Australia, which under Labor or Coalition governments, has been a notable friend of Israel. That hasn't changed. For goodness sake, last week the Prime Minister and I could not have been more explicit in underlining that Israel, facing missile attacks, had an absolute right to protect itself while at the same time, calling for proportionality and the minimisation of civilian casualties as a result of any Israeli response. ALEXANDRA KIRK: But this week you were in fierce disagreement. Julia Gillard had to back down because she was in the minority on this issue. If it had come down to a vote in caucus, you and a bunch of other ministers - most of cabinet, along with many backbenchers - would have voted against her position. That would have been a fatal blow to her leadership wouldn't it? BOB CARR: Alex, that's re-litigating and presenting a caricature of what I said yesterday in ABC interviews was wide-ranging discussion and consultation within the Labor party. I said yesterday that the way the Prime Minister consulted her colleagues was a model of consultative decision-making. The way she intelligently reached a summary conclusion and took that public was again a model of how a good leader should behave. MARK COLVIN: Foreign Minister Bob Carr speaking to Alexandra Kirk. Andrew Robb Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:41:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1460 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1459/MEDIA-RELEASE--LABORS-INSULT-TO-ISRAEL.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1459 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1459&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1459/MEDIA-RELEASE--LABORS-INSULT-TO-ISRAEL.aspx  LABOR’S INSULT TO ISRAEL   The Gillard government’s embarrassing decision to abstain from voting at the United Nations against Palestinian Observer Status is a betrayal of our close friend in Israel.   “This decision seriously undermines bi-partisan support for Israel meaning there is now a very clear distinction between the Coalition and the Gillard government,” said the Federal Member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb.   “It is also a further sign of the diminished authority and lack of leadership of the prime minister who was rolled by her cabinet colleagues and the Labor caucus.   “After spending hundreds-of-millions of dollars to win a seat on the U.N. Security Council it is a major embarrassment for the Labor government to effectively make a ‘non decision’ in regard to this issue.   “This drive for U.N. recognition by the Palestinian leadership risks increasing the status of militant group Hamas which governs Gaza, rather than promoting peace and reconciliation between the Israeli and Palestinian people,” Mr Robb said. Andrew Robb Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:52:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1459 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1195/Response-to-Statement-by-Prime-Minister-on-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1195 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1195&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1195/Response-to-Statement-by-Prime-Minister-on-Afghanistan.aspx 28 October 2010 On 7 October, 2001 President Bush ordered strikes against al-Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This followed the barbaric, cold blooded terrorist attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and four commercial airliners.  Over 5000 people were brutally murdered, from around 80 countries, including 22 Australians. The attacks were not simply an assault on America. It was an attack on all people in the world who have a commitment to freedom and liberty; an attack on all those who hold immutable the right to individual freedom, democracy, human rights, religious tolerance and the free flow of global trade and commerce. Australia joined the UN-led International Coalition against Terrorism after invoking the mutual-defence clauses of the ANZUS Treaty on 14 September, 2001.  This was the first time the Treaty’s clauses on acting to meet a common danger had been invoked since it was enacted in 1952. Australia’s commitment became part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations and activities in Afghanistan after ISAF was established via a unanimous resolution of the US Security Council. Today, nine years later, a force of 120,000 troops from 47 countries remain part of the NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Australian combat deaths have reached 21, with 152 wounded in action.  The ultimate sacrifice by these young men, the grief of their families and friends and the continuing commitment of our 1550 troops still in Afghanistan warrant not only our lasting support and gratitude, but also a clear explanation by this Parliament of our future involvement, our strategy. The immediate goal of the NATO led operations in Afghanistan were to “seek out and destroy al-Qaeda” and ensure that “Afghanistan can never again serve as a base from which terrorists can operate”. In 2001 John Howard spelt out that while the destruction of the al-Qaeda network was our first priority, the “long term aim of this war is to demonstrate that organised, international, state-sanctioned terrorism will not be tolerated by the world community”. The question before us today is to assess the extent to which our efforts in Afghanistan to date have helped to achieve these objectives, and the merit and nature of any continued involvement. Twelve months after joining the security mission in Afghanistan, Australia withdrew its combat force after the defeat of much of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and the factional warlords, and the focus then shifted to Iraq. Yet, within three years we again deployed Special Forces because of the re-emergence of the threat due to the re-grouping of insurgent forces. In the meantime a new face of Islamic terrorism emerged via home grown terrorists, with bombings in London.  This highlighted the global impact of the training role of terrorists in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. As well, Australia suffered a huge number of civilian casualties in two bombings, 3 years apart, in Bali, and the world observed terrorism cells emerge in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, and al-Qaeda was very active in Iraq. The fact is that Islamic terrorists have continued their attempts at spreading global fear and terror. In the 8 years before 9/11 there were six significant attacks by the terrorist group al-Qaeda.  In the 9 years since 9/11 there have been more than 48 significant al-Qaeda attacks, with over half of them in the last four years. These figures of growing al-Qaeda activity mask the success of concerted international action on the intelligence, law enforcement and financial fronts. Over the past nine years it is evident that the terrorist bombings have increasingly occurred in Muslim countries, albeit often with Westerners as their intended target. No doubt many plans have been made to continue to spread terror in Europe and North America, and other Western countries, but many hundreds of terrorist plots have been foiled. Clearly, the responsibility and actions of free countries to first, and foremost, protect their citizens and interests at home and abroad, have been remarkably, and increasingly effective. Yet, radical Islam remains the greatest threat facing the world.  Not only do non-Muslims face the problem, moderate Muslims need to accept that it is also their problem. Australia is a nation blessed with peace.  Yet, in a world of random and wanton terror, there can be no peace unless we deal with the threat. This threat of terrorism includes the increasing danger of terrorists getting possession of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons.  We know that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are eager to obtain these types of destructive weapons.  If these aims were to be achieved the potential to cause enormous damage and loss of life in our cities would be enormous.  This threat underlines the vital need of the civilised world to maintain maximum pressure on terrorist organisations wherever they may be operating around the globe. This growing threat makes it extremely important for the effort in Afghanistan to succeed; and makes it just as important to see related efforts in Pakistan succeed. Failure, or premature withdrawal from Afghanistan, would be very badly interpreted by those countries inhabited by unwanted terrorist cells, such as Pakistan, and celebrated by Islamic terrorists themselves. It would see countries lose confidence in the resolve of the developed world.  In turn these countries would themselves lose resolve.  It would encourage efforts by local authorities to seek accommodations with terrorists rather than continued resistance.  Yet, attempts to appease evil elements never succeed. It would also greatly embolden terrorist elements. The current objectives of the UN-led forces to stabilise Afghanistan by military and economic means, to train the Afghan National Army and security forces to the point where they can provide for the nation’s security and to prevent the terrorists regaining any hold over the Government in Kabul, and at local levels, must be followed through. Real progress is being made:  In January 2009, Afghan Security Forces numbered 156,000, today there are more than 231,000 ANSF members. Schools have been reopened for the first time in years – school enrolment has increased from less than 1 million when the Taliban fell, to more than 6 million, with more than 2 million of these females. 85 per cent of the population can now access some type of healthcare facility within one hour. In 2001 there were less than 1 million in the Kabul region, now there are more than 5 million. More than 5 million Afghan refugees have returned home. And today, 70 per cent of Afghans believe that their children will live in a peaceful and secure Afghanistan, despite more than 30 years of continuous war. While patience was always central to success in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the UN-led forces should nevertheless aim to achieve these outcomes as quickly as possible. This underscores the importance of providing sufficient fire power and other resources. If the Government is to rely as much as they do on our military leaders’ advice on appropriate levels of resources required to achieve each strategic objective, then these military advisers must be held more accountable for the achievement or non achievement of these outcomes. Consideration should be given to a forum for our military leaders and parliamentarians, similar to the Congressional hearings of US generals in the United States, which would not only bring greater accountability to our military leaders but, importantly, better inform the parliamentarians who must take greater, and ultimate, responsibility.  Rather than setting a particular withdrawal date for the UN-led forces, the achievement of these outcomes should determine the exit strategy.  Otherwise the insurgents may decide to simply sit out the prescribed exit date. In saying as much, there must be a clear recognition that achieving a stabilised situation in Afghanistan, which denies terrorists a safe haven there, requires the Pakistani Government to be willing and able to stabilise its own border with Afghanistan. At the moment this border region is a development zone for jihadi terrorists. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself, where the US assisted both Afghanistan and Pakistan to remove the Soviet Union in the 1980’s, then left Pakistan to deal with a politically unstable Afghanistan, and an obliging Taliban willing to help Pakistan end the conflict.  This Taliban and Kabul connection also provided Pakistan with a counter-weight to India. An effective ongoing partnership with Pakistan is inextricably linked to success in Afghanistan.  Pakistan must not be left to pick up the pieces. Australia should be prepared to help the US and other countries support Pakistan deal with its huge challenges – not only militarily, but also with debilitating regional issues like the recent devastating floods which will create local social and political problems for years to come. Pakistan must know that the West is strongly committed to Pakistan’s security and prosperity.  Unfortunately, many Pakistani’s view the West as a threat, not as a partner.            Changing this perception is a major and critical challenge. In due course, the timing and nature of the departure of UN-led forces from Afghanistan is critical.  In particular, it must be done in a way which maintains the military credibility of the US. In the decade ahead the security resources of the UN countries, and particularly the United States, must be progressively freed up to deal with the more global positioning of terrorist cells, and other non-terror related strategic challenges. It is particularly in Australia’s interests to see the US presence and standing in the Asia Pacific undiminished in the coming decades as China presents increasing challenges, especially for the West Pacific region, as its military capability continues to rapidly increase. Our mission in Afghanistan is now clearly defined.  It is to: Help reconstruct and build the economic fabric of Afghanistan, Train the Afghan National Army, and security forces to take over security of their population, and With the Afghan National Security Forces fight the battles needed to secure the population centres. Our mission is just. Our mission is critical. Our mission involves a transition strategy which is working. The date of our exit should be determined by the achievement of the above outcomes and not dictated by a nominated point in time. All that remains is that we maintain the courage of our convictions and the commitment of necessary resources in a timely fashion.  Global terrorism will remain a fact of life for a long time into the future.  It will require ongoing management, resolve and vigilance.   Andrew Robb Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:07:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1195 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1130/Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-Money-News-2GB.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1130 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1130&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1130/Interview-with-Ross-Greenwood-Money-News-2GB.aspx Topics: Doubts about Labor’s mining tax raising $10.5 billion in revenue, Julia Gillard’s half-baked asylum seekers’ thought bubble, Federal election odds and polls. E&OE ROSS GREENWOOD: The Shadow Finance Minister, Andrew Robb, who joins us now. Hello Andrew. ANDREW ROBB: Good evening Ross. ROSS GREENWOOD: A question for you, I noticed, I was actually a bit gob-smacked by this, page eight in the Financial Review which is supposed to be the journal of business, the document that you gained from Bank of America and Merrill Lynch’s analyst, after a briefing with the BHP Billiton Chief Financial Officer, Alex Vanselow, today indicating that, one, BHP Billiton is not likely to pay any tax after the minerals resource rent tax for 25 years, number two, that, according to the analyst, Jason Fairclough, the case for an emergency mini-budget is compelling, the revised budget estimates of revenues have just been made up and the multi billion dollar hole exposed in the budget will mean no budget surplus and pressure even higher interest rates and higher costs of living, which of course was your commentary on the whole thing. So the point about this is, that quite clearly, something needs to be done, urgently. ANDREW ROBB: Well, you know, we’ve been concerned all along that the budget is basically a house of cards. I mean if you look at the assumptions, they’re just you know ridiculous, especially in year three and four where they claim that they’re going to get a surplus. I mean this year is the biggest budget deficit in the history of the country, $57 billion. Next year will be the second biggest in the country’s history, $40 billion in deficit. And then they claim a surplus the next year. It just doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny. The problem with this one is the third and fourth year they claim a lot of the surplus is dependent on this mining tax. Well now it appears from this report of the BHP Chief Financial Officer, that he’s saying really they won’t pay on their existing assets any sort of revenue of any consequence for the next twenty five years. Well that means that BHP and Rio, which were 80 per cent of the revenue anyway, will be paying very little. Where’s the $10.5 billion that the Government claims that will be received in the years ahead when you know at the moment the whole budget deficit, the whole budget surplus proposition is a complete fallacy. ROSS GREENWOOD: The second thing of course is that Goldman Sachs/JB Were estimated that by 2020, the foregone revenue could sort of be $35 billion… ANDREW ROBB: That’s right. ROSS GREENWOOD: …but the issue of this also is that Treasury has not been asked to forecast any more than two years ahead. So the Australian public right now has got no idea as to how much this could potentially cost. ANDREW ROBB: Well, the Government has refused, as has the Treasury, to provide any estimates or any detail of how they arrived at these estimates. The companies, the mining companies have been sworn to silence. You know we can’t even get calls returned in many cases. There is a cone of silence that has gone down over really what makes up this mining tax, how much tax will the miners really pay or not pay, how it was arrived at. It does appear from the briefing from BHP in London that the company will really pay very little if any tax in the years ahead. The coal seam gas companies are saying the same thing. So it would appear that the Government’s claiming $10.5 billion, a lot of money $10.5 billion a year. The companies are giving the impression, certainly in overseas briefings, that they won’t be paying anything, and they have said that retrospectivity no longer applies which means they won’t be paying anything. So there is a big hole in this budget. The confidence that people can have that this Government has got a grasp on the economics of this country must be severely challenged. The election will be about the economy, it will be about costs of living for people, it will be about interest rates and how quickly they will go up. Therefore, the Government has a great responsibility to demonstrate that its budget is not built on a house of cards. ROSS GREENWOOD: One issue here of course also is that a lot of those who may have been affected, those who look for coal seam gas, of course have now been put under the petroleum resource rent tax. But of course one thing that the Government seems to have been at pains to make certain occurs, is a lot of the big projects such as the Gladstone LNG projects as well as that also quite clearly, with the exemptions of anything other than coal and iron ore, Olympic Dam and others to go ahead. Are you concerned right now that maybe the public has not worked out there may have been individual agreements signed or individual coal seam gas projects ANDREW ROBB: Well the coal seam gas companies are saying that they expect to pay no extra tax over what they would have paid. ROSS GREENWOOD: No extra tax? ANDREW ROBB: No extra tax. So in other words they’ll pay the royalties which would’ve gone to the states and they are saying they’ll pay no extra tax. So if they’re not paying any extra tax and if BHP is saying that most of its existing mines or all of its existing mines now won’t be taxed, well, what will be taxed? ROSS GREENWOOD: Well that’s the issue I guess. We’re about to go to the polls and this was a key area that the Prime Minister personally intervened in to try and sort out. The miners walked away all very happy but it would appear as though the Government in terms of its budget forecasts is completely out of whack right now. ANDREW ROBB: Well the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, was feted after this for having achieved some extraordinary negotiation, but every day it’s starting to look as though what she did do is simply cave into the miners, which is not difficult to do and in the process has blown a hole in the budget. Therefore no one can have any confidence about the prospect of surpluses in a few years time. What that means is there will be greater pressure on interest rates and costs of living. And the general confidence in the ability of this Government, having lost Lindsay Tanner, having lost Kevin Rudd, there is no economic talent left. In many respects Wayne Swan is seen as a total light weight and Julia Gillard really has never had anything much to do with economic policy. So we’ve really got a bunch of amateurs in my view and at the very least, they should tomorrow, when Ken Henry appears before the Senate Fuel and Energy Committee, he should be allowed to answer how they got to these sorts of assessments, that there’ll be a $10.5-11 billion from the mining industry tax in the budget in three years time. ROSS GREENWOOD: Can I ask you another question, is this afternoon of course another key plank of the Prime Minister’s policy to clear the decks before calling a federal election was the idea of having an asylum seekers’ refuge or basically I suppose centre in East Timor. Now the whole idea of a processing centre in East Timor has this afternoon been rejected outright by East Timor’s Government and we heard from Arsenio Bano, Vice President of the Fretilin Party and East Timor MP saying that was unanimously voted down by all sides of each political party in East Timor. What does that do in terms of the Government’s plans? ANDREW ROBB: Well again it just means that they had no plans basically. The plan was for a centre in East Timor. That was a ludicrous plan in the first place because what it would mean, it would mean that there would be literally in the end prospectively hundreds of thousands of people trying to get to East Timor as a sort of certain route to being assessed and placed somewhere, hopefully Australia. It was never going to happen. Plus that country, you couldn’t have people in a refugee or a detention centre, probably living a lot better than many of the people who are living in East Timor. I mean it was never going to happen, which just means again, that it’s policy on the run. Nothing seems to have changed from Kevin Rudd’s period. He started a hundred things and finished none of them. And now because he galloped into everything and then galloped onto the next thing before any of it was completed, creates all these expectations, we’ve seen Julia Gillard I think doing the same with the mining tax, now we’re starting to see that the numbers that it was all based on and the expected tax revenue is illusory, is not there. Now we’re seeing the next big policy, the boat people, it’s not an answer, they’ve got no plan and as a consequence it will encourage further, the people smugglers to encourage people to get on boats and get on over here. ROSS GREENWOOD: But Andrew Robb, you’d be also conscience of the fact that despite all of that right now, not just with bookmakers but with opinion polls, that Julia Gillard appears to be a red hot favourite for the forth coming federal election. ANDREW ROBB: Well, I agree with the bookmakers, they’ve still got a strong lead. On the polls itself, ever since they had a change of the leadership and dumped Kevin Rudd unceremoniously, our primary vote, in other words those people who would vote with their fist vote, has stuck on 42. We haven’t moved. In other words, our base hasn’t moved. We only need another two or three primary points and we would win the election. So we’re not far away. Julia Gillard and the Government dropped in both polls today, they dropped seven primary points from last week, so it went back to the Greens. I think you know 52/48 is still a very contestable position. This election, because there’s a whole new team in the Labor Government and we’re in our first term in opposition, this election I think will be the first one in a long, long time where the campaign will count because we really are starting off not far apart to be honest. And how we perform and how we explain how we would run the country. How we would get the debt down, how we would get the deficits removed, how we will take pressure off interest rates, they’re the sorts of things that will determine whether we would get up or not. ROSS GREENWOOD: Andrew Robb, who is the Shadow Minister for Finance, we appreciate your time here on Money News. ANDREW ROBB: Many thanks, thank you Ross. Further information: Cameron Hill on 0408 239 521 Andrew Robb Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:21:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1130 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1019/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Breakfast-ABC-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=1019 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=1019&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1019/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Breakfast-ABC-Radio.aspx Topics: Stern Hu affair, ETS and Copenhagen Conference. FRAN KELLY:                          The Opposition’s spokesman on climate change, Andrew Robb has been in China for the past five days. He’s been there for meetings on climate change but he says the allegations against the Rio Tinto staff have been page one news everyday in Beijing and he says in contrast the Australia Government response looks quote “timid and weak”, I spoke with Andrew Robb last night from Hong Kong.   ANDREW ROBB:                     Well Kevin Rudd has been tugging his forelock for ten days there’s been a megaphone operating up here in China. For the five days I have been in china its been pushed as the number one story on state run media everywhere and increasingly strident accusations of wide spread bribery and espionage involving Rio Tinto and demands for regulations of foreign interests, its cranked up each day and it seems like a very deliberate attempt to escalate the issue at least in China.   FRAN KELLY:                           And what have you read into that or what have you been, any hints you have been given on what that the escalation might be about?   ANDREW ROBB:                    No, I am not well placed to know what all that’s about but I must say though I thought the Australian Government response has looked extremely timid and weak and really provided zero defence of a great Australian company. I don’t any of the details of course of the case but I did some work with Rio Tinto before entering Parliament and I found the company had very strict ethical policies for bidding bribery and this needs to be said at the very least and it’s not being said and It didn’t come through in China and needs to be said. It needs to be presented before the Chinese people, you know at least the clarification of the nature of charges.   FRAN KELLY:                           Are you getting that sense, is there any sort commentary anywhere in any of the media you have been reading there about Australia’s response being weak?   ANDREW ROBB:                    No, there is just been very little other than to say that the Australian Government is going to treat this with caution and whatever has been the statement over the last five or tens days. You know it’s been said that it’s a matter of state secret but state run media have been clearly being briefed from senior officials and there has been a deliberate attempt I think to really raise the temperate on this issue very stridently and strongly and Australian companies are in the firing line.   FRAN KELLY:                          You have been having discussions with Chinese officials and Chinese business executives has the Hu issue been raised directly with you in any of these meetings?   ANDREW ROBB:                     No only in the context of that we have do have differences on issues but again they’ve been people with a prime responsibility for climate and energy and those sorts of issues and it hasn’t been appropriate to pursue this issue.   FRAN KELLY:                          Andrew Robb lets move onto climate change because you spent five days of your trip there in climate change talks. China is pretty well the ace in the pack for a global deal on global warming what did you learn there? What level were you having talks and what did learn about china’s intentions?   ANDREW ROBB:                    Well I had talks at the most senior levels I had the director generals of the Departments who were running all matters to do with the Copenhagen talks and to do with their own programme to deal with climate change I think Copenhagen hinges critically on the US and China, not just china, the US and china they represent nearly 50 per cent of all emissions. My experience with Washington a few days before and then with China is that both countries are still miles apart in many respects and I think the key element is that trust is missing, there is still a lot of suspicion from both countries. In the US, people think China will use climate change to take technology and their industries and their jobs. And in China people think the US will force a cost on their energy which will slow growth and hold them back and stop them from getting hundreds of millions more people out of poverty. So you’ve got this essential distrust which both countries are seeking to deal with and I think it does make it fairly problematic that there’ll be any sort of detailed road map or plan coming out of Copenhagen.   FRAN KELLY:                          Given that mistrust then, it sounds like you didn’t get much sense that China is committed to an ambitious deal at Copenhagen or any deal at Copenhagen, is that the feeling you got?   ANDREW ROBB:                     Well they certainly won’t agree to any international emissions targets and I think they and 77 other developing countries certainly won’t agree to any international emissions targets, and in that sense it makes it very difficult I think, to formulate a global response.   FRAN KELLY:                          If that’s so, and from what you say then, reports that the EU is extremely concerned that the US will reach some kind of bilateral climate and energy deal with China which will obviously pre-empt the Copenhagen negotiations, that’s a long way off the mark.   ANDREW ROBB:                     Well from my discussions in both countries I would be surprised that it’s something that was completed before Copenhagen, between the two countries. Again, from my observation in Washington, the Obama legislation offers much greater job protection than the Rudd Bill that we’re debated so heatedly in Australia.   It just underscores, you know, the common sense in fact, of the Rudd Government taking a big deep breath, holding back a vote on their emissions trading scheme until the US, you know, gets close to finalising a bill because at the moment the US Bill would result in Australia being far less competitive, even against the United States.    We must walk in step with the big countries. If we get ahead the rest of the world, especially countries like the United States, it is just an enormous damage to Australia unnecessarily. Tens of thousands of jobs and the irony is that the scheme currently we’re debating will do little or nothing about CO2 emissions. There’s a lot of work to be done to get this scheme right, if we are to move in lock step with the rest of the world.   FRAN KELLY:                           From what you’re saying, well I mean all the signs are, that the world is not moving anywhere much lock step or not. But from what you’re saying, you’d agree then with the comments made as an aside by the Prime Minister at the G8 meeting recently where he was overheard saying, I don’t think we’re on track for an agreement at Copenhagen.   ANDREW ROBB:                    Well, that was… that’s certainly my sense, absolutely. And it’s just extraordinary that the PM, you know, would say that and yet in the next breath be stated that you know, life will stop if as we know it if we don’t finalise the bill in the next three weeks. I mean, it is just politics being played in Australia with this very significant issue.   FRAN KELLY:                          Andrew Robb thanks very much for your time.   ANDREW ROBB:                    Thanks Fran.   FRAN KELLY:                          That’s Andrew Robb, the Opposition Spokesman on Climate Change. He’s been in China for the past five days and Washington a few days before that. And I caught up with him in Hong Kong, Hong Kong Airport actually last night, he’s on his way home.         Andrew Robb Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:34:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:1019 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/953/Persecution-of-people-of-the-Bahai-faith-in-Iran.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=953 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=953&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/953/Persecution-of-people-of-the-Bahai-faith-in-Iran.aspx I rise to speak on the persecution of people of the Baha’i faith in Iran—in particular, the seven believers who have been incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin Prison for eight months. Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” Here in Australia, section 116 of our Constitution prohibits the government controlling or mandating a particular religion. However, such is not the case in Iran. On 18 February this year, I met with two representatives of the Bayside and Glen Eira Baha’i communities, Mr Murray Davies and Ms Niloufar Zamani. Mr Davies and Ms Zamani sought to share with me what they called ‘the continuing abuse of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian Baha’i community’ and what they saw as ‘a renewed wave of persecution and control similar to that which occurred in the 1930s in Nazi Germany’. Founded in 1844, the Baha’i faith is the youngest of the world’s independent religions. Today the faith has more than five million believers. The largest population of Baha’is live in India, numbering around 2.2 million. The next largest population exists in Iran, at roughly 350,000 people. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the Baha’i community has suffered the effects of a systematic campaign orchestrated by the Iranian government. The government’s aim is to eliminate the Baha’i community as a viable entity in Iran, despite Iran being the birthplace of the faith. To begin, the Iranian constitution does not recognise the religion. Baha’is are not permitted to meet, to hold religious ceremonies or to practise their religion communally. Holy places, shrines and cemeteries have been confiscated and demolished. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of Baha’is have been executed for refusing to recant their faith and embrace Islam. Since the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005, dozens more have been arrested. Amongst those who have been recently arrested are seven leaders of the Baha’i organisation known as Friends of Iran. The organisation is believed to have served as an ad hoc coordinating body representative of Baha’is in Iran, apparently to the full knowledge of the Iranian government. Recently, however, the government labelled the organisation illegal and arrested its seven leaders—one in March 2008 and the other six in May 2008. They are expected to go on trial shortly on charges of espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the system. Amnesty International considers the charges to be politically motivated and those held to be prisoners of conscience, detained solely because of their conscientiously held beliefs or their peaceful activities on behalf of the Baha’i community. The accusation of spying has been used as a pretext to persecute Baha’is for more than 75 years. They have been accused of being tools of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and, most recently, Zionism. The seven imprisoned leaders are being held in section 209 of Tehran’s infamous Evin prison, run by the Iranian ministry of intelligence. After eight months, no evidence has been brought to light by the prosecutors. The five male detainees are said to be held together in one cell of about 10 metres squared without any beds. All have been permitted access to relatives but none has been granted access to their lawyer. The lawyer is said to have been harassed, intimidated and threatened since taking on the case. The trial is expected to take place shortly in the Iranian revolutionary court. If convicted, the seven will face lengthy prison terms or even the death penalty. This is not the first time the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran has been raised in this House. In 2006, the members for Macmillan, Boothby and Stirling, with strong support from the other side of the House, spoke with heavy hearts as they recounted stories of persecution passed on to them from their local communities. As they did then, I today call on the Australian government to continue to raise this matter with the Iranian embassy and urge the immediate and unconditional release of the seven prisoners. I appeal to authorities to ensure that the seven prisoners are protected from torture and other ill treatment and to ensure that they are given regular access to their relatives and lawyer. Finally, I implore the Iranian government to stop persecuting the Baha’i people and allow their citizens the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:953 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/923/Situation-in-Sri-Lanka.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=923 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=923&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/923/Situation-in-Sri-Lanka.aspx I rise in response to the ministerial statement on the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. In my previous role as shadow minister for foreign affairs for the coalition I became acutely aware of this ongoing conflict taking place in Sri Lanka, a civil conflict which has been raging since July 1983 following the most destructive explosion of communal rioting in the history of that island nation—a period in Sri Lanka’s history commonly referred to as ‘Black July’. This conflict has taken the lives of over 70,000 people and displaced some 400,000 people, who are now living in refugee camps. The coalition welcomes any well-targeted measures that extend humanitarian assistance to those innocent victims of this conflict and helps facilitate both parties following the path of a sustainable peace agreement. Under former Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, the previous government provided more than $30 million between 2005 and 2007 to experienced and reputable multilateral organisations to provide humanitarian relief across a range of areas to those affected civilians in Sri Lanka. We also welcome multilateral actions such as the statement by the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs—Norway, Japan, United States and the European Union—urging the Tamil Tigers to discuss with the government of Sri Lanka ways to end the hostilities, including the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence and to assist those desperate civilians caught up in the conflict and unable to leave the area. The coalition strongly urges the Tamil Tigers to free civilians currently trapped within the conflict. The lessons of history confirm that a political solution is the only effective way to end the violence, resolve the conflict and provide a durable peace in Sri Lanka. The coalition joins the Australian Government in calling for a peaceful resolution to this conflict as soon as possible for the sake of all the citizens of Sri Lanka.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:923 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/891/Interview-with-David-Speers-Sky-News-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=891 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=891&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/891/Interview-with-David-Speers-Sky-News-Agenda.aspx Topics: G20, Global Financial Crisis, Treasury Forecasts, COAG, Secret Labor State Treasurers’ meeting, NSW Mini Budget, Emissions Trading Scheme. DAVID SPEERS: To our guest this afternoon the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, COAG and the Emissions Trading Scheme, Andrew Robb. Mr Robb, thank you for joining us. ANDREW ROBB: Pleasure David. DAVID SPEERS: Can I start by asking for your thoughts on this G20 Summit. Do you think Kevin Rudd should have gone to Washington or stayed at home? ANDREW ROBB: Oh no, on this occasion I think it’s appropriate, very appropriate that he be there. I just hope that he spends more time listening and soaking it up, rather than lecturing. DAVID SPEERS: Because your colleague Joe Hockey today said and I quote “The Government should focus on what is happening in Australia, Kevin Rudd should not be going overseas just to lecture the world about what he thinks is good for it.” But you think there is a case for the Prime Minister to be there? ANDREW ROBB: Well as I say, I agree with Joe, he shouldn’t be there to lecture people. His job there is to listen in many respects and to make some assessment of the actions being taken by other major powers around the world. How it’s going to impact on Australia and how we can shield ourselves if you like from some of the worst effects on financial meltdown. It’s not necessary. Can I just say David? It is not necessary that we are affected as other countries are. We will be impacted but bear in mind we had no net debt twelve months ago. We still have no net debt because of sensible economic management for twelve years. You take the United States, their debt is 50% of their GDP. They're in a demonstrably worst position, there is no reason why we should be so affected but the Prime Minister has got to look at what the other countries are doing and see how we can avoid a lot of the worst effects. DAVID SPEERS: There is, as you know, a lot of debate about the whether there’s a need of the overhaul of the architecture. By that I mean the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, whether we need a new international system to deal with global finance, essentially to prevent this sort of thing happening again or happening as badly as it has this time. Do you think there is a need for that sort of structural change on a global level and can it really be achieved? ANDREW ROBB: I think there’s been an overreaction or a propensity to blame everything on regulation or lack of regulation or inappropriate regulation around the world. It’s almost as though all of those that see intervention as the solution to every problem in the world. Those people who want to control things, who feel that people can’t make good decisions for themselves, are going to seize this opportunity to put more and more layers of regulation. Now we have got to have regulation and Australian introduced sensible regulation over the last twelve years which is the envy of the world. But people have forgotten that a lot of the seeds of this were sown back in the Asian Crisis where a lot of those countries saw the disadvantage of not having reserves. They spent twelves year or more, building up reserves, eight, ten years building up reserves which had to be spent around the world. That created the bubble, created the bubble and because those Asian countries had fixed exchange rates, it exported a lot of problems to the rest of the world. Now again, it was the lack of a free market in exchange rates that really sowed the seeds for a lot of what we are seeing today. Then the regulatory issue compounded it so we can’t rush to see regulation as the answer, we’ve got to stay true to the market. That ultimately, people making decisions for themselves is the solution to having the best quality of life that we can achieve. DAVID SPEERS: On the outlook for the Australian economy, I have to ask you Andrew Robb about your comments about the fact that there could have been some manipulation in the latest forecasts for growth, Ken Henry, the Treasury Secretary, says those comments were unhelpful can you just clarify what did you mean by saying there was a smell of manipulation about these figures. ANDREW ROBB: It was really a query to the Government, not to Ken Henry, this document, this document of mid year forecast, is the Treasurer’s document, it is a document that he can change, and in fact it is a matter of public record that back in the 90’s, Paul Keating and Peter Walsh documented this in a book. Paul Keating physically changed the growth forecasts to enable the political selling of the One Nation programme. DAVID SPEERS: And you’re suggesting that’s what Wayne Swan did here? ANDREW ROBB: I wasn’t suggesting, I was probing and I wanted an answer from Wayne Swan, from the Government, what has happened here is the Government… DAVID SPEERS: Well Ken Henry has given an answer, Ken Henry has given an answer that the figures weren’t changed. ANDREW ROBB: This is a Government document. The Government has now spent months actually using a lot of officials as human shields to avoid probing and questioning. It is almost a McCarthyist approach, if you query anything about infrastructure you are against nation building, if you query immigration you’re a racist, if you ask questions about their emissions trading scheme, you’re a sceptic and if you question any of their documentation you are viciously attacking the officials. Now this is a technique of the government. DAVID SPEERS: If you accuse the government of changing the figures supplied to them by Treasury and the head of Treasury says, no that didn’t happen, surely you must accept there was no manipulation. ANDREW ROBB: David, this was a question that I was putting and the Opposition were probing this government. What I am saying to you is we have a really unfortunate situation developing where at a time of great pressure on the world economy and our economy, we have a government which is employing techniques to avoid probing and avoid questioning, we will not be silenced by this government and its techniques to avoid any serious questioning. In fact government decisions would be improved immensely if they would engage, if they would allow themselves to be accountable to be questioned and the way in which they used Ken Henry as a human shield rather than addressing the issue themselves was again another example of it. DAVID SPEERS: OK, I want to move on, but just to clarify, are you still unsure as to whether there is manipulation or are you satisfied there was not. ANDREW ROBB: Well I am satisfied with Ken Henry’s answer and that was the answer the government should have been giving and we should have had the opportunity to ask more questions of the government not only about that document but about other documents. DAVID SPEERS: Now COAG, if I can get you to put your hat on as the Shadow Minister for COAG, the Western Australian Treasurer, Troy Buswell today has said that he wasn’t invited to a meeting of State Treasurer’s by the other Labor State Treasurer’s, he is of course the only Liberal State Treasurer from Western Australia, this meeting two weeks before the next COAG meeting, I have tried to seek comment from Wayne Swan’s office, they said they didn’t have anything to do with this meeting of State Treasurer’s, the New South Wales Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal’s office has not returned our calls. What’s your reaction to this, do you think there was a snub there of the Liberal State Treasurer? ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s more than a snub, it’s a really concerning development, this is a secret meeting of State Treasurers where they have explicitly avoided inviting the Liberal Government of Western Australia, clearly it is a meeting designed to divvy up the billions of dollars that the Federal Government is intending to spend within the COAG context and I just say to you that a time of great pressure in the world economy and the Australian economy, putting the Labor Party, as these Treasurer’s have done, putting their Labor Party and their political skins ahead of the interests of Australians is a disgrace and we must have a situation where, at a time of great pressure, these people are looking to the interests and the future and the lives and jobs of every Australian not just their own jobs. Their own political skins. DAVID SPEERS: But it wouldn’t be the first time ahead, a couple of weeks ahead, of COAG, that the Labour Treasurer’s, or Premiers or the Liberal Treasurer’s or Premiers do get together and have a bit of a caucus, a pow wow before they get into the full COAG meeting. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. ANDREW ROBB: Look, this is off the back of Tuesday’s New South Wales Government’s mini budget, where they effectively scrapped a whole host of projects that last week were 100 per cent their responsibility, road and rail projects, and said now they’re the Commonwealth’s responsibility. In other words, the 12 years of reserves and surpluses that have been built up by sensible economic management have been basically lost in 12 months and what is left, they are looking to use as a slush fund to bail out failed Labor Governments and I’d say this secret meeting, secret meeting, no press allowed, no publicity given to it, excluding the state of Western Australia the Liberal Government, is an attempt to divvy up those funds to save their political skin. The New South Wales Government in particular is just a disgrace. It is finished. It is on the nose. It is costing New South Wales residents, you know, billions of dollars in mismanagement and failed management and it is just a great concern to see this sort of political game playing going on, when you know they need to be looking after the interests of every Australian. DAVID SPEERS: Now, I want to ask you finally about your other portfolio area of the Emission Trading Scheme. The Government this is week facing some serious questions from big resources companies, Nyrstar and Woodside, threatening to take jobs off shore if this Carbon Trading Scheme goes ahead as planned. At the end of the day though, do you think these resources companies should be made to clean up their act or should we bow to them every time they threaten to take jobs offshore? ANDREW ROBB: Well David. Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd and all the rest have said, including Ross Garnaut, they’ve said ad nauseam, there is no Australian solution to climate change, there is a world solution. We have to do something in concert with the rest of the world and what we have said, what has happened over the last 2 or 3 or 4 weeks, has confirmed the very fears we’ve had. We’ve said if this development of this Emissions Trading Scheme is rushed, if it is rushed, then they will get it wrong. The government will get it wrong and we will see Australian jobs, but as importantly, Australian emissions being exported to places like China and India where we will make the environment worse because of the more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Look the government has got a political agenda on this not an economic agenda. Again, they’ve tried to save political skins, Lindsay Tanner in Melbourne, Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek, people who are under threat from the Greens at the next election, they’re trying to rush this thing through, get at a $10 billion tax in 2010 to balance their books, save their political skins, they are not looking at the interests of Australian business, Australian jobs and the future of the environment for that matter. DAVID SPEERS: Andrew Robb, we will have to leave it there, but good to talk to you, thanks for joining us today. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much David. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:891 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/884/Interview-transcript-Meet-The-Press-Network-Ten.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=884 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=884&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/884/Interview-transcript-Meet-The-Press-Network-Ten.aspx Topics: Execution of Bali bombers, US and New Zealand election, Budget, Emissions Trading, leak of Bush / Rudd conversation, infrastructure. PAUL BONGIORNO: And welcome back to the program, Andrew Robb. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning, Paul. PAUL BONGIORNO: What's your reaction to the news the Bali bombers have been executed? ANDREW ROBB: I think it might hopefully give a lot of people in Australia a sense of closure. All of those that had some association with the many that were killed in two incidents in Bali. And I do hope that there are no reprisals. Though, I think we must have quite a lot of confidence in the Indonesian authorities. I think they've done a first-class job over the last five years in dealing with this issue. PAUL BONGIORNO: Moving on to the other big news of the day - the Clark Government has fallen in New Zealand. John Key is promising to wind back Helen Clark's emissions trading and to cushion business more. I notice one commentator said, even so, New Zealand will be further ahead of where Australia's now at. ANDREW ROBB: Well, in some respects. They've excluded major sectors like agriculture, so if we brought in a scheme, we'd have major parts of our industry at a competitive disadvantage immediately, even with New Zealand. But, clearly it was an issue in the New Zealand campaign. There was a political agenda to rush a scheme in by the New Zealand Labour Party, Labour Government. It's done in a way which will possibly lead to jobs and emissions being exported overseas. They've moved too far ahead of the rest of the world too quickly. It was an issue in the campaign. And it will be instructive in terms of how the Rudd Government has got to wind back the sort of unnecessary haste and take some measured approach to this, so we get the right scheme in place, not some politically inspired scheme. PAUL BONGIORNO: Do you think, just looking at the results in New Zealand, following on what happened certainly in the US of America and indeed Australia a year ago, that there's a mood for change out there in the electorates? ANDREW ROBB: There's a strong mood for change. You see incumbency around the world under threat. People, they're fearful. I think in New Zealand there was a lot of merit seen - I've spent some time there over the last couple of months - there was merit seen in having someone in charge who has strong business and financial experience. John Key benefited from his background because they're in recession. And people are worried about their jobs, quality of life, about the future for their kids and they are looking for, you know, a sense of strong resolve, experience, measured approach to dealing with a very uncertain world. PAUL BONGIORNO: Alright. At the end of the week Kevin Rudd flies to Washington for the G20 summit. But can George Bush trust him after the 'Australian' had an unflattering leaked version of his phone conversation with the President? The American Ambassador is diplomatically optimistic. RECORDING OF US AMBASSADOR ROBERT MCCALLUM (Thursday): The relationship between our two countries is not going to be necessarily diminished by any particular article in a newspaper about any particular subject. The Prime Minister's office said the article was inaccurate. The White House has said the article was inaccurate. As far as I'm concerned, it's a closed matter. PAUL BONGIORNO: As far as the Federal Opposition is concerned, is it a closed matter? ANDREW ROBB: Well, Paul, vanity is a very dangerous trait. And I think we've seen it in spadefuls here. This issue is not a closed matter. Certainly not in the diplomatic community. It is reverberating very strongly throughout the diplomatic community. As long as Kevin Rudd is Prime Minister, no world leader will have a fully frank discussion with him on the telephone. And I suspect even the President Obama call the other day, I suspect he let Mr Rudd do most of the talking for fear of seeing the conversation somewhere in the newspapers. PAUL BONGIORNO: The Opposition was calling for an inquiry into the matter. There's nothing much left to inquire in to, is there? ANDREW ROBB: Well, no, the point is Mr Rudd said there were only two people in the room, himself and a note-taker. If the note-taker leaked the essence of the conversation, that is a matter of great consequence and it is a police matter. If the note-taker did not leak that material, there's only one other man that it could have come from, it came from the lips of the Prime Minister. That's another matter of great consequence because we're talking about relationships with world leaders for years to come, and the Prime Minister needs to explain what has happened. We need to get to the bottom of this. PAUL BONGIORNO: When we return, Barack Obama says he'll pledge the US to a cap and trade system to cut greenhouse gases. Where does that leave Australia? And the uplifting event of the century so far came on Wednesday Australian time. RECORDING OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Whether they supported me, or Senator Obama, whether they supported me or Senator Obama, I wish God speed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my President. RECORDING OF PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: It's been a long time coming, but tonight because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America. PAUL BONGIORNO: Welcome to our panel, Malcolm Farr, from the ‘Daily Telegraph’ and Philip Clark from Radio 2GB. In the final week of the presidential election, the Republicans made a play for coal miners votes in Ohio, Colorado and West Virginia. They reminded voters in those States that the Democrat had once warned coal fired power stations could go bust as the cost is put on carbon pollution. They forgot to mention he's in favour of carbon capture. His policies are also to encourage a cap and trade system any more a more ambitious target than in Australia. RECORDING OF BARACK OBAMA (September): I've put forward a very substantial proposal to get 80% reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050. MALCOLM FARR, ‘DAILY TELEGRAPH’: Mr Robb, President-elect Obama has a heavyweight climate change program. This has got to change the international equation on this issue. How will, what will that change be? ANDREW ROBB: Well, this is a point. We have to wait and see what he does deliver. Clearly, he has put on the table hat he supports a cap and trade scheme. We support a cap and trade scheme. But he has also made it crystal clear if you look at what he said and what he's written over the last 12 months, that the only real solution to climate change is to have all of the major emitters involved. And he's really put a condition on America's leadership that China and Brazil and India all commit to some scheme. So, we've got to look at how we can deliver that. They've got a recession in the US. There's millions of people going out of work. We have to look at when and how they'll start a scheme. It puts all the more onus on the Rudd Government to wait and find out what can the new President deliver? When can he deliver it and how can he deliver it before we get too far ahead of the world? MALCOLM FARR: But we'll see that at the UN meeting in Poland in December and Copenhagen in December 2009, won't we? His election has got to change the dynamics of those important meetings. ANDREW ROBB: I suspect it will change the dynamics. He won't even be the President by the Poland meeting and he probably won't have an environment person in place until June-July next year the way their system works. And they've got a recession, right? They're losing millions of jobs. He's got a lot of other issues. We don't know how quickly and in what form any scheme will take place. The Congress just voted almost overwhelmingly, both sides of the House, against a scheme. So he's got a lot of internal politics to deal with. There's a lot of uncertainties, that's the point. Our whole point has been - we've got to get this scheme right, not just bring it in for crass political purposes. The Rudd Government are prepared to cut corners, in part, to save the political skin of some senior ministers who are under threat from the Greens. There's no doubt about that. It's one of their motivations. They want a new source of income. If they introduce the emissions trading scheme, it's a new tax, indirect tax. In two years time, it's the equivalent of increasing the GST from 10% to 12.5% in 2010. All of these things are hugely relevant, especially if the rest of the world is still years away from implementing their own scheme. PHILIP CLARK, RADIO 2GB: There are two basic views here. You're either a climate change believer because you believe this is the greatest economic threat to the planet's future or alternatively you believe in climate change on the balance of probabilities given the science that it's wiser to do something or nothing. Just from a personal point of view, where do you sit in that debate? ANDREW ROBB: I'm not a climate change sceptic, I'm a Rudd sceptic. I don't think... PHILIP CLARK: But what's your personal view. Well, go on then... ANDREW ROBB: I do not think they're competent and their motivation on this is appropriate. We've got to protect Australian jobs and fix up the climate. You best tackle climate change from a position of economic strength. That's what we've always got to keep in mind. And also there's no Australian solution. There's a global solution. We've got to go hand in hand. My view is we've got to give - I agree with Rupert Murdoch - the science is very difficult for any of us to grapple with. We've got to rely on the people who know the science. I agree with Rupert Murdoch - we have to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, therefore we need to get on with and get a scheme in place, reduce CO2 emissions. There's a lot of efficiency benefits at the same time with all of that to preserve our resources and our energy sources. So we've got to get on with the job but we've got to do it in a way where we don't export Australian jobs and export emissions. And that's the trouble with getting too far ahead of the world. If we do something which exports emissions, we'll end up with more CO2 going up in to the atmosphere from China and India, so we'll do damage to the climate and at the same time shoot ourselves in the foot economically. PAUL BONGIORNO: The mid-year update of the budget shows the global financial crisis has shown put a bomb under the Rudd agenda? WAYNE SWAN (Wednesday): What we can do, whether it comes to infrastructure, whether it comes to reform of federal-state relations or a whole host of other areas, there's tough decisions that must be taken. PHILIP CLARK: There are, and the key questions that have to be taken what sort of infrastructure decisions should the Government be taking? The State Governments, particularly in NSW, are pushing for urban transport solutions. They are electorally popular, albeit needed. Should we be going down that route or be going down the key drivers of economic growth like port developments and national highway developments? Where would you be? ANDREW ROBB: It's a very good question. In fact if you look at all the reforms of the Labor Government has been championing for two years, it all involves spending money. Now they've lost $60 billion. No matter whether you take COAG, education revolution, infrastructure, even the ETS, the emissions trading, it's all a matter of spending money. Now the money has been lost, a lot of their reforms have evaporated. The real challenge for the Rudd Government, what now are they going to do to keep Australia strong? On the infrastructure, the only money they'll have to spend on infrastructure is money that was delivered by the former government. That's all they'll have. And it really means with a lot less money than they were projecting. They've lost $60 billion. The quality of decisions needs to be paramount. We need to see real transparency in measuring whether we go ports, where do we get the biggest productivity kick from our investment? And if it's just done behind closed doors with all the best benefit cost analysis not on the table, none of the assumptions on the table, we can then greatly fear that again this money will be used as a Labor slush fund to bail out failed States. MALCOLM FARR: OK, can we say, "Liberal Party to Sydney commuters - walk?" Is that what you're saying? ANDREW ROBB: Well, there hasn't been one decision by this Government in 12 months. They've been in office 12 months - not one infrastructure decision. Not one, despite the fact they came in to office saying they would reform infrastructure. So to the people in Brisbane and Sydney and Melbourne, tomorrow in a traffic jam, congestion is a big economic problem. We've got to solve congestion in these cities. It's costing our economy a lot of money. In other areas like Western Australia, get the raw materials out of the country. Ports and congestion are big items. But we need to have this stuff on the table so we can make objective decisions, not politically inspired decisions behind closed doors. PAUL BONGIORNO: Andrew Robb, thank you very much for joining us. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, Paul. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:884 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/875/Burma.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=875 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=875&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/875/Burma.aspx I rise in response to the ministerial statement on Burma. I have long had a personal concern with the oppressive regime in Burma. During my time in business I had many commercial interests in Thailand and gained an appreciation of the totally unacceptable conditions that applied across the border. I visited many of the border regions on business and in conversations over meals at night would be told of the horrific incidents that were taking place within that country. As Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs responsible for the settlement of refugees I had firsthand exposure to the refugee camps and the horrendous experience of many people throughout their lifetime being exposed to a life in a refugee camp and all that goes with it. Earlier this year I attended a meeting of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly and had a one-hour private meeting with a group of exiled Burmese politicians. Again, many of my views of the regime were reinforced. There is an urgency about dealing with the situation in Burma. The coalition welcomes any well targeted measures that extend Australia’s deep concerns relating to the violation of human rights and the suppression of democratic ambitions in the state of Burma. Burma’s regime, the so-called State Peace Development Council, has overseen economic decay and social disintegration since 1988. The regime has ensured that Burma is now the cot case of South-East Asia. The events of September last year briefly brought the plight of the Burmese people to the world’s attention, but in no way have the problems which have led to such protests subsided. The ongoing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, has become the symbol of the brutal nature of this regime. Her release is paramount to reaching a peaceful solution and settlement. The Australian government must persist, as the previous government did, in making formal representations at the highest levels of government in urging the Burmese regime to address human rights and the release of all political prisoners. This must be done in cooperation with our regional neighbours, including China and Thailand, who are among Burma’s leading trade partners. It is also critical that ASEAN be front and centre of such efforts. The further sanctions announced today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs follow on from the previous sanctions implemented in October last year by the former government. These financial sanctions announced by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, were well targeted against 418 individuals, including members of the State Peace and Development Council, cabinet ministers and senior military figures. This coincided with $14 million in humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people, who are the innocent victims of this regime. These funds were directed through a number of organisations and supported basic health, water and sanitation for vulnerable people among the south-east and northern border regions of Burma. I note the statement by the minister that the initial response of the Burmese regime to Cyclone Nargis was very disappointing—and indeed it was very disappointing and caused great hardship to many hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of Burmese. However, I also must note that the initial $3 million response from the Australian government was also very disappointing—it was a pittance. The death toll from the cyclone was of 2004 tsunami proportions. It is estimated that over 200,000 Burmese died as a result of the cyclone. As was the case with the tsunami in late 2004, Australia should have been taking a strong and immediate lead in responding to this tragedy. An AusAID team should have been made available immediately and Australia should have indicated that we were prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars, as we did with the tsunami, in assistance to this country in such difficult circumstances. This is our region. We are a successful, developed country with leadership responsibility to respond effectively to emergencies in our region, and especially to emergencies which relate to a country which is in such a dire situation and where the people are so oppressed. Australia was well placed to respond to the situation in Burma due to the investment by the Howard government in Australia’s ability to respond to regional crises. In the final two budgets of the Howard government, over $100 million was set aside to improve Australia’s response to emergencies in the region. I do acknowledge the final contribution by the Australian federal government to this crisis. I would also like to warmly acknowledge the work of Australian aid bodies, including World Vision and Care Australia. I have met previously with those bodies and was very impressed by the work they had undertaken. As these organisations told me, the effects of the cyclone were comparable to those of the 2004 tsunami yet there was much less media coverage given and consequently private donations were much fewer than they were in 2004. We are a generous country, and I am sure most would be surprised to hear that World Vision received only $5 million in private donations for cyclone relief compared to over $100 million following the 2004 tsunami.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:875 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/855/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy-Insiders-ABC-TV.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=855 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=855&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/855/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy-Insiders-ABC-TV.aspx Topics: Peter Costello, Liberal Party Leadership, WA State Election, the Prime Minister's overseas travel, Government's bid for UN Security Council seat, Government's ban on uranium sale to India. BARRIE CASSIDY: Andrew Robb, good morning, welcome. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Barrie. BARRIE CASSIDY: Peter Costello there talking about staying beyond 2010. You wouldn't want that, would you? Would the Liberal Party want that? ANDREW ROBB: Look my assessment Barrie is that Peter effectively has ruled out the leadership. He did it after the election. Nothing I've seen since, privately, publicly, or even this week, has changed my view on that. Secondly, he's got no long term future as a backbencher. So it's very clear in my mind that there will be no resurrection. I think he will pull up stumps and we've now got to move on the next generation and get on with the job that we're paid to do. BARRIE CASSIDY: Why do you say he has no long term future as a backbencher? That is because that's the view within the party? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I would assume he would see he's got no long term future. I mean having been the steward of the economy for 12 years and having done such an outstanding job, having left such a huge legacy, it's, in my view, inconceivable. He has no long term future as a backbencher. And I think what he said after the election, in other words that he is looking to another career outside of politics, I think that is still the prevailing view. And I think he really has in all sorts of ways, despite a little bit of wriggle room, which may owe a little bit to the sales pitch that's going on this week, I think in effect he has said this week that he will be moving on. BARRIE CASSIDY: And the sooner he moved on the better? ANDREW ROBB: Well it, the timing is, you know, somewhat at his discretion. I think it is appropriate for him to be satisfied where he's going and also to put some distance between the book and any movement out of politics. It's his call on that front. But the main thing is that I think for the colleagues who accept that we can't be held captive to a messiah complex. We've got to move on. I think he has said enough privately and publicly to indicate that he is moving on and we need to get on with it now. BARRIE CASSIDY: So you seem to accept that there would be some destabilising factor if he was to stay on the back bench and that at the very least it would be a reminder of what might have been, and you don't need that. ANDREW ROBB: Well no, I don't think it's, you know if, it is his call and if he's there on the back bench, if we have psychologically moved on, accepted that he's going, I don't see a problem in that sense. The point is we now need to you know, to give Brendan in my view some clear air. He has earned that. I mean, there are some people out there who have enjoyed the soap opera of the last few months and are urging us to entertain another soap opera. Well, we shouldn't do it, you know. Brendan I think has earned the right to demonstrate with some clear air his effectiveness as a leader. BARRIE CASSIDY: Now the memoirs have got a lot of attention obviously, but what is happening right now in the Liberal Party is far more interesting and far more important than any retrospective about Peter Costello and whether he was denied the leadership in the past. ANDREW ROBB: What do you mean Barrie? What... BARRIE CASSIDY: Well by that I mean that you've got a leadership crisis going on in the Liberal Party right now and surely that is what the party should be focusing on rather than what occurred some 12 months ago. ANDREW ROBB: No, no, what we've had now is several months of speculation about Peter Costello's intentions and given, you know, the qualities of the man, the record of the man, the history, it has overwhelmed any opportunity for Brendan to make his own mark on things. Now I think we've got to move on from that. He has deserved the right to show his stuff, to show how effective he can be as a leader, and if he does increasingly show his effectiveness he will get support. BARRIE CASSIDY: Okay, so he's on trial I think is what you're saying. What's the benchmark? What's the timetable? ANDREW ROBB: Well we're always on trial. We're always on trial. Look, there's no timetable on these things. These things become obvious. I mean I think if Brendan has this opportunity and can demonstrate an increasing effectiveness as leader, he will have strong support. If he struggles with effectiveness I would say to you he would be the first person to identify that but he needs to be given this opportunity. BARRIE CASSIDY: But how do you measure that effectiveness? Does it in the end come back to the polls - a 16 per cent preferred prime minister is not good enough; 43 per cent two party preferred is not good enough? ANDREW ROBB: Barrie, polls and all these things, they help you with these sorts of judgements but it is a question of judgement and people do know, and Brendan will know himself, right? So I don't see a problem with that. The thing is we have to get off his back, you know, get away from the messiah complex that often has plagued our party and allow him a chance, with all of us doing our job, to, you know, pin Labor to the wall. They've been now in office nearly a year. It's all talk and no action. We've got an enormous opportunity and a responsibility to keep them accountable and expose their lack of readiness come into office and their lack of leadership under Kevin Rudd. BARRIE CASSIDY: Okay, in Laurie Oakes' column yesterday a suggestion that you're the only person in the party who can guide and influence Malcolm Turnbull. Do you have that sort of relationship with him? ANDREW ROBB: I think Malcolm would find that a bit of an odd statement. But I've got a good relationship with Malcolm, known him 20 years. He's got a similar relationship with many other colleagues in the Parliament. So no, I don't accept that. BARRIE CASSIDY: If he was to be leader the suggestion is you would be shadow treasurer so that you could keep an eye on him. ANDREW ROBB: Look, I'm privileged to have the job that I've got. I think our whole focus, including mine and Malcolm's, must be on giving Brendan the opportunity to lead us and lead us effectively and, you know, that is our priority. We start entertaining other hypotheticals, we're doing ourselves a damage. BARRIE CASSIDY: Now you talked about the messiah complex; Peter Costello talks about a cult of personality or a cult of leadership and that's been devalued in his view. Is that simply because this class of 96 was essentially in awe of John Howard and he put them there and therefore they remained loyal to him right to the end? ANDREW ROBB: Look Barrie, I'm really not that interested in history. Look, in any organisation anybody who is there and is overwhelmingly effective for a long time, as John Howard was, they will demand and they will attract great loyalty, great respect. And, you know, the fact of the matter is in hindsight, the population said that we'd run our race and John Howard had run his race. But you could see the dynamics of how what happened, happened within the party. And it's true of any organisation, not just in politics, in business or in bowling clubs... BARRIE CASSIDY: But it's not just raking over history though because for a while there seemed to be this almost obsession with your preselections that you went for the average Joe rather than the sort of party professional. I suppose Jackie Kelly was the best demonstration of that. Did you get the balance out of whack? Is it time to start looking again for some more professional politicians? ANDREW ROBB: No, that's not, that was a great strength of ours. One of the reasons that we I think were so effective for 12 years - and I suspect when people look back on that period it will be seen as a golden age - one of the reasons is that in the party room we had all shapes and sizes. We had people from all sorts of backgrounds. We didn't have a whole lot of suits, you know, from politics as the other side of politics has got. That's why they are not, they've got no sense of where to go with policy, what to do. They've got no certainty. That's why it's all talk and no action. There's no decisions been taken in nearly 12 months of office. I put to you it's because they know their politics; they don't know their community. They're not of the community like our party room has been. It's a great strength of our party room and one of the reasons we were so successful as a government. BARRIE CASSIDY: How big a shock will it come to the Liberals and the Nationals around Australia if Brendon Grylls does a deal with Labor in the west? ANDREW ROBB: It will be a huge shock. To suggest in my view that there is any sort of natural fit between the National Party and the Labor Party is farcical. And I just assume and desperately hope that in the end principle will come into this. I mean here you've got the Labor Party, the only reason this whole issue is being discussed is because the Labor Party is on its knees in Western Australia. It's been corrupt, it's been a disaster, it's been directionless. It has stripped regional Australia of money and seems a great irony that now the National Party might even entertain some sort of fit with the Labor Party. BARRIE CASSIDY: Okay on some of your portfolio responsibilities now. And uranium sales to India - how do you think the Government has handled that up to this point? ANDREW ROBB: Barrie, this is a scandal that has gone under the radar and it's going to cost Australia billions of dollars. Stephen Smith, has come back last night or the night before, is misleading the Australian people. India is profoundly upset and annoyed at the fact that we are refusing to sell uranium to them for clean power nuclear generation. Now we are urging other countries - a sort of a touch of the Colonial stuff here - after 100 years of humiliation we are now saying to India: You can buy it from somebody else and you should but we don't trust you with our uranium. And it is going to affect our relationship. It's going to cost the Australian community billions of dollars. And it is only because of internal, grubby internal Labor politics. There is a deal being done not to sell uranium to India and the national interest has not been considered. BARRIE CASSIDY: Now on Kevin Rudd who is off overseas again next Sunday to the UN and part of the important business is to try and have Australia sit on the Security Council. The former minister Robert Hill seems to think that Australia is well placed to win that bid. ANDREW ROBB: Well, firstly at what price? I mean we made a clear eyed judgement in 2004 about a pitch for a Security Council seat and the view was we would have to change a lot of policies in regard to Israel, our support there, other issues in Africa in order to get the numbers out of the 192 countries. So firstly what price? They never answered that question. How many consuls and embassies will we have to set up unnecessarily to attract the vote? These are the sorts of issues that need to be discussed. But before that, Kevin Rudd, he's been away 50 nights. John Howard at this same time had been 18 nights away in his first year of office. Kevin Rudd needs to get some runs on the board in Australia, deal with the pensioners, deal with other issues before he starts to again strut the world stage preaching to others and, you know, putting aside his responsibilities back here in Australia. To miss the Parliament for a week in his first year of office is just, you know, it's totally inappropriate, it's unacceptable. BARRIE CASSIDY: But you say at what price - according to Robert Hill they are off to a flying start I think because of the, as he says, the ratification of Kyoto and the apology to the Aborigines. Both initiatives were noticed internationally. ANDREW ROBB: Well, good. I'm pleased that they're noticed internationally. I'm sure it will have some impact. It doesn't answer my question. There's 192 nations - all sorts, all shapes and sizes. Our assessment based on professional advice from the same people that are advising the Rudd Government was that just three years ago, that we would not be able to secure the numbers without severely compromising important, often bipartisan positions, on some of our relationships around the world; and we would spend $30 to $40-million opening up unnecessary consuls or embassies around the world. BARRIE CASSIDY: So it's not worth it in your view? ANDREW ROBB: Well that was the view in 2004 based on the professional advice. Now if they're going to make this huge effort we've asked a quite legitimate question: Why is it different now three years later? Why is it different? And they haven't answered that question. BARRIE CASSIDY: Okay, we're out of time. Thanks for your time this morning. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Barrie.   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 13 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:855 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/850/Another-hypocritical-Rudd-Government-statement-on-India.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=850 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=850&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/850/Another-hypocritical-Rudd-Government-statement-on-India.aspx   The Rudd Government’s position against Australian uranium exports for India has opened up another front of hypocrisy with the Foreign Minister saying in an overnight speech in India that the two nations need to work together on climate change. The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, has said that one of the major challenges that the countries in the region face is climate change yet in the same speech he has again stated that the Rudd Government will not supply Australian uranium to India for clean power generation. “This is both confusing and hypocritical” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “He is looking foolish and two-faced. “We also have on the one hand the Rudd Government encouraging the 44 members of the supplier group of countries to sell uranium to India for peaceful, clean nuclear power generation, while at the same time telling India that we don’t trust them with our uranium. “How can Australia be left in a position of supporting a third country doing what Australia itself supposedly strongly opposes? “Mr Smith has tied himself in knots on this issue. “As well, it makes no sense whatsoever to sell uranium to China and Russia but not to the world’s biggest democracy, India. “As the Coalition has been saying, how can the Rudd Government claim moral leadership on the global stage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it ducks the first hard decision which would result in massive reductions in emissions? “This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could propose. “As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “The removal of the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources could see as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs being met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. “After 10 months in office the Rudd Government’s foreign policy towards uranium sales to India is mired in confusion and contradiction. “The Rudd Government needs to get a consistent, sensible position on this issue. “Like so many other areas of Government, Mr Rudd and his Minister’s are so pre-occupied with managing issues in the daily media that they don’t have a coherent policy that will last.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:850 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/854/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert-SKY-TV-Agenda.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=854 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=854&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/854/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert-SKY-TV-Agenda.aspx Topics: Liberal Party leadership, Peter Costello, Mayo by-election, pensioner payments, Rudd Government refusal to sell uranium to India KIERAN GILBERT: Mr Robb, Joe Hockey left us in no doubt what he thinks about Tony Abbott’s comments. Does this sort of public spat help? ANDREW ROBB: Well, look Kieran, I don’t think it’s helpful to be commenting on either polls or on colleagues. And it’s a position that I’ve held for some time and it’s a position I’m going to maintain. KIERAN GILBERT: But having Joe Hockey criticise Tony Abbott for his comments on the polls, hasn’t he just then committed the same sort of sin? ANDREW ROBB: Well, he may or may not have. All I’m saying is for my part, I don’t think it’s constructive to be commenting from my point of view on colleagues; either Joe Hockey or on Tony. And I certainly don’t think it’s constructive to be commenting on the polls on a day to day basis. You know, we’re early in opposition. We’ve got a big job ahead of us. We’ve got a government that’s all talk and no action. People are expecting us to knuckle down and present a viable alternative to keep the government accountable. People are very worried about what’s happening on the government side of politics. A lot of expectations have been dashed. No decisions been taken of any consequence. And that’s our job to pin them to the wall and keep them accountable. KIERAN GILBERT: The, I suppose, without commentating on specifically what they’ve said, this is a symptom of the whole situation for the Liberals at the moment. The poor polls, I suppose, are part of that but is it tenable for the uncertainty for these sort of thing to be hanging around beyond Christmas? ANDREW ROBB: Well look, we’re in the first year of Opposition. Any organisation where you remove a whole series of authority figures of the order of John Howard etc, does lead to a transition and we’re going through that. I do think we’ve got very strong raw material, a lot of young people, a lot of experienced people. We’ve got the talent there to mount a very competitive team at the next election. And I think given the very disappointing performance of the Rudd Government to date, it is critical for us to get into fighting shape so we can offer a real alternative at the next election. This could be a one term government. KIERAN GILBERT: As a firmer director of the Liberal party, is it tenable, this is a week out from Peter Costello’s release of the memoirs, but there is speculation that Costello might stay on the backbench as the Member for Higgins. Is it tenable for him to hang around as the Member for Higgins indefinitely or would it undermine the leadership of whoever’s in the top job of the Liberal Party? ANDREW ROBB: Well again it is all hypothetical Kieran. I mean it’s so unproductive to engage endlessly in what ifs. The fact of the matter is we’ve got to deal with things as they come along. We have been. We’ve adopted a whole series of policy positions that will stand us in good stead. I think we really have taken it up to the Government in the Parliament all year. I think we have really put pressure on them. We have exposed the lack of decision making, the all talk and no action. We have exposed the fact that they’re spinning their wheels in many respects. They have disappointed people so greatly. And I think we can take heart from the performance to date. We’ve got to deal with things as they come along and we’ve got to get ourselves in to a really well tuned fighting machine and I think we’re on the way to doing that. KIERAN GILBERT: OK, away from the hypothetical then. Here’s a concrete comparison. You’ve just scrapped through in the Mayo by-election, formerly a blue ribbon Liberal seat, Alexander Downers seat. He’s just left parliament of course. It’s been compared to Simon Crean’s loss of Cunningham back in 2002 when Labor lost Cunningham, the seat around Wollongong, to the Greens. Is that a fair comparison comparing Cunning to Crean as Mayo to Nelson? ANDREW ROBB: I don’t think it is really. I’ve had a good look at it. The fact of the matter is what happened in Mayo was quit a solid result. We had eleven candidates, which is a huge field. We had really two Liberal candidates, 1 disaffected who went to Family First and took 11 per cent off our vote yet he didn’t preference us. So that was a serous loss. And you had really two effective Green candidates with a major issue which didn’t happen in Cunningham. We had a major environmental issue which was on the national stage, the lower Murray. So, all of the conditions were there for us to have some bother yet when you look at the analysis now we will finish up with a two party preferred vote about four percent off that received by Alexander Downer at the Federal election and that is pretty much the average for a by-election result historically. So, I think it’s been a pretty solid result. It has been misrepresented, and you expect that from so quarters, but I think from a Liberal perspective it was quite a solid result. KIERAN GILBERT: But there was no Labor Party contesting that seat. ANDREW ROBB: Well that’s again one of the reasons why it was even more difficult because all of those Labor voters and others who would typically vote for Labor or if they wanted to send a protest to Labor they picked one of the two prominent Greens and they did get a lot of prominence. As well there were many, many other candidates - a field of eleven, an extraordinarily large field. Now to end up with a result four percent two party preferred result off the 2007 election I think is the average and was a pretty solid result. KIERAN GILBERT: OK, on to another issue, the Prime Minister and two or three of his most senior ministers have basically said it’s nearly impossible to survive on the single aged pension as it stands. Now Brendan Nelson has called for a one-off payment for this to be addressed immediately but surely this has got to dominate your strategy? You’ve got the Prime Minister, three senior ministers admitting people can’t live on this and yet they’re saying wait another six months. Why isn’t Brendan Nelson out there every day holding joint news conferences with the seniors associations and so on? It seems like such a free kick for you. ANDREW ROBB: Well we have done an enormous amount and Brendan in particular. It was of all things in the Budget, apart from being a pretty tepid sort-of affair, the whole budget, the big obvious area that was not addressed was this question of pensions. And we have been pursuing that on the ground and in many other forums ever since. The Government, you know, it’s unacceptable that they would be flagging all this great concern and be saying that people have to wait nearly another twelve months for any further consideration of it. Brendan’s call for a one-off payment was well placed and the Government’s in a position to do it. They were gifted the largest surplus in history, over the next four years written in to the forward projections nearly a one hundred billion dollar surplus. That was what was granted to them when they arrived in office. They are in a position to look after the most needy in our community and they need to do it as a matter of urgency. KIERAN GILBERT: Just finally, Andrew Robb, before I let you go, I’ve got to ask you about Stephen Smith’s trip to India. You’ve been calling on the Government to remove its ban on uranium sales to India and yet India has not singed the non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Why should the Government bend its rules just in order to make a buck? ANDREW ROBB: Look, the Rudd Government have got themselves in a total mess on this thing and it’s a mess that is going to cost Australia and Australians billions of dollars in the years ahead. Here we have the totally hypocritical position where the Rudd Government is encouraging forty-four other supplier countries around the world to provide uranium to India for clean nuclear power generation and at the same time is telling India we don’t trust them with our uranium. It beggars belief. This is so contradictory; so hypocritical. And it all stems from a grubby little party political deal within the Labor Party to satisfy the Left. Australia’s interests have not been taken account of. Global greenhouse gas emissions have not been taken account of. India’s interests have not been taken account of. This is a really dereliction of duty by the Rudd Government which will cost Australia billions of dollars and they must reverse it as a matter of urgency. KIERAN GILBERT: OK, Andrew Robb unfortunately we are out of time. Thanks for joining us on PM “Agenda”. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Kieran. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:854 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/849/Rudds-India-insult-to-cost-Australia-billions.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=849 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=849&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/849/Rudds-India-insult-to-cost-Australia-billions.aspx   Australia’s relationship with India will be severely damaged if the Rudd Government does not commit to selling Australian uranium to India, costing Australia billions of dollars. The Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that it is the Government’s “… intention to take India to the front line of its international relationships.” “For Mr Smith to say that he wants to advance the relationship with India, while saying at the same time that Australia will never sell uranium to them, is a massive contradiction and an insult. “India’s energy security and needs are the major issues in the relationship between our two countries. “This issue can strategically make Australia a very important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is the big issue. “Comments in today’s media from Indian officials label the Rudd Government position as ‘puritanical’, inconsistent, suggest that it ‘does not make sense’ and say it has ‘evoked considerable anger’. “After 10 months in office the Rudd Government’s foreign policy towards uranium sales to India is mired in confusion and contradiction. “On the one hand the Rudd Government is encouraging the 44 members of the supplier group of countries to sell uranium to India for peaceful, clean nuclear power generation, while at the same time telling India that we don’t trust them with our uranium. “How can Australia be left in a position of supporting a third country doing what Australia itself supposedly strongly opposes? “The hypocritical and contradictory position adopted by this weak and vacillating Rudd Government will cost Australia billions of dollars, it will severely compromise a burgeoning relationship with India and is an international embarrassment. “It makes no sense whatsoever to sell uranium to China and Russia but not to the world’s biggest democracy, India. “As the Coalition has been saying, how can the Rudd Government claim moral leadership on the global stage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it ducks the first hard decision which would result in massive reductions in emissions? “While Mr Smith has in the past rightly referred to India’s incredible economic growth, the fact of the matter is that for this growth to continue, India needs access to reliable energy supplies. “To block Australian uranium sales to India while supporting the sale by other countries makes no sense and is an affront to India. “Eventually the Government must announce a reversal of this policy. The Foreign Minister should announce the back down on this bad policy this week. It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable.“ Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:849 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/847/India-visit-is-the-time-for-Smith-to-back-down-on-Australian-uranium-exports.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=847 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=847&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/847/India-visit-is-the-time-for-Smith-to-back-down-on-Australian-uranium-exports.aspx   Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, should use his visit to India next week to announce that the Rudd Government will be reversing their policy of not exporting Australian uranium to India. “One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to renege on a decision by the Howard Government to help India supply greenhouse gas free electricity to its growing population, by providing uranium to India, under a agreement being negotiated between the US and India,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “Since that time the Rudd Government has been humiliated into supporting the US – India agreement at meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which effectively condoned the sale of uranium to India by other countries around the world for peaceful power generation. “Mr Rudd and his Government now need to go one step further and reverse the other half of their decision which reneged on the Howard government agreement to supply India with Australian uranium. “As the Coalition has been saying, the Government has no choice but to reverse their opposition to these sales if they were serious about climate change and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. “As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “The removal of the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources could see as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs being met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. “This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could propose. “The Rudd Government's decision to overturn this policy was wrong and by the Foreign Minister telling India it was because of ‘party politics’ the offence was compounded,” Mr Robb said. “India is understood to be deeply offended by the Rudd Government decisions, and the manner in which it was conveyed. “India’s energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. “This issue can strategically make Australia a very important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is the big issue. “While Mr Smith has in the past rightly referred to India’s incredible economic growth, the fact of the matter is that for this growth to continue, India needs access to reliable energy supplies. “It is hypocritical in the extreme for Australia to refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. “As well, it makes no sense for Australia to sell uranium to China and Russia, but not India. “The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. “To block Australian uranium sales to India while supporting the sale by other countries makes no sense and is an affront to India. “The Foreign Minister needs to use his visit to India next week to announce a reversal of this bad policy. It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:847 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/846/Three-months-on-Rudds-EU-for-Asia-is-unloved-and-unwanted.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=846 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=846&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/846/Three-months-on-Rudds-EU-for-Asia-is-unloved-and-unwanted.aspx   In the three months since Mr Rudd unveiled his half-baked, hasty plan for a European Union style community for the Asia - Pacific the idea has been ridiculed and dismissed in the region while the Prime Minister has failed to give any further explanation. “The Government is spinning its wheels on so many policy areas, including the critical foreign affairs portfolio,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “Three months ago today, in the Prime Minister’s desperation to have something to say when he went overseas he delivered a speech which we now know was a rushed cut-and-paste job. “He trotted out his plan that by 2020 he would reorganise the architecture in the Asia – Pacific into a European Union style community. “Since that time we have heard a lot from the Prime Minister about what his plans for an EU for Asia are not - but we still don’t know what it is. “The Prime Minister now tries to say that it isn’t along the lines of a European Union, but when he first started talking about it he said he wanted ‘…East Asia having the regional equivalent of the European Union over time’. Everyone is confused. “Since this proposal has been announced there has been embarrassing revelation after embarrassing revelation. “In the discussions I have held with people right across the region including visits to Washington, Jakarta, Papua New Guinea and Singapore, no one has raised this proposal with me and nobody in these countries knows enough about it to discuss it when it is raised with them. “There have also been negative comments made about Mr Rudd’s proposal from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. “India didn’t even know anything about it until it was raised with them by the Australian media. The US, New Zealand, Japan and Indonesia were not consulted before it was announced. “Foreign missions based in Canberra can’t even get any detailed information on this proposal out of the Government. “And the Prime Minister’s chosen envoy, Mr Woolcott, was only told two hours before the announcement and there have been no staff or funds allocated to make it work. “I have no idea what Mr Woolcott is telling people he meets overseas because he has been put in the unfortunate position of not having any detail. “This would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. It reflects very poorly on Australia. “On top of that, Mr Smith also seems confused about exactly what Mr Rudd is proposing by saying it could be either ‘evolution or the creation of a new body’. “This stands in sharp contrast to last weekend’s comments by Mr Rudd that this proposal would be ‘a modest evolution of what already exists’ and ‘centred institutionally on APEC’. “This is no different to the Howard Government proposal to include India in APEC and aim for closer regional ties." Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:846 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/845/Australias-interests-in-former-Soviet-states-should-not-be-represented-through-Moscow.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=845 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=845&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/845/Australias-interests-in-former-Soviet-states-should-not-be-represented-through-Moscow.aspx   The Rudd Government should alter its diplomatic arrangements overseas so that the Australian Embassy in Moscow is no longer responsible for representing Australia's interests in former-Soviet states. "The Federal Opposition believes that Russia must cease its intimidation of Georgia, immediately withdraw all of its forces and rescind its recognition of the two Georgian regions as independent states," said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. "The Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, has said that he will be conveying Australia's protest over the situation in Georgia to the Russian Ambassador in Australia. "But the Minister must now go one step further and show Russia that there are consequences to its actions and its trampling over Georgia's sovereignty. "In particular, Australia should move to reposition our representation away from Moscow, of the nine former Soviet states who still receive Australian representation via our Moscow Embassy," said Mr Robb. "Many, if not all, of these countries are known to be very uncomfortable with continuing Australian representation via Russia. "Currently, of the fourteen countries that were previously part of the USSR, only two have formal Australian diplomatic presences - Estonia and Latvia. "Georgia and Azerbaijan are covered by our embassy in Turkey, while Lithuania is covered by our Swedish Embassy. "The remaining nine former Soviet State, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, involve 140 million non-Russian people who are covered by the Australian Embassy in Moscow. "While it is not financially responsible to suggest establishing a diplomatic presence in every country, the Federal Opposition believes that these nine (9) former Soviet states should receive representation either in Estonia and Latvia or via other appropriate existing Australian embassies. As well, a country the size of Ukraine with close to 50 million citizens, a small permanent presence could well be considered. "This need not involve extra funding as we are not calling for the opening of new Consulates or Embassies. "The diplomatic arrangements that currently exist were put in place by the previous government, however, the situation has changed with Russia's invasion of Georgia. "Australia is not a partner of Russia's in the G8 or many other major international political groupings, however, this initiative would show that the Rudd Government was serious in its criticism of Russia." Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:845 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/841/Interview-with-Paul-Bongiorno-on-Meet-The-Press.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=841 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=841&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/841/Interview-with-Paul-Bongiorno-on-Meet-The-Press.aspx Topics: Olympics, Chinese and Russian Nationalism, Australia's future alliances, Liberal Party Leadership. MEET THE PRESS PRESENTER PAUL BONGIORNO: Good morning and welcome to Meet the Press. Are we seeing the re-emergence of an old world order we saw dead and buried in the last century? There are disturbing echoes coming from Beijing and Moscow. The heavy hand of an authoritarian regime that will brook no dissent is proving a troubling sideshow at the Olympics. The Prime Minister sees our fate in the emerging giants' hands. PM KEVIN RUDD (Tuesday): The rise of China, in particular, represents the great unfolding drama of the 21st century. Will China democratise? How will China respond to climate change? How will China deal with crises in the global economic and financial systems? How will China respond domestically to the global information revolution? How China responds to these forces will radically shape the future course of our region. PAUL BONGIORNO: While half a world away, the Russian bear crushes defiance in Georgia, an independent sovereign nation trying to move away from its past as a Soviet vassal state. US SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE (Tuesday): This is not 1968 - and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten its neighbours, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it. PAUL BONGIORNO: Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, ANDREW ROBB, is our guest. And later, one of Australia's biggest unions worries about emissions trading and the remnants of WorkChoices. AWU national secretary Paul Howes joins us. First, what the nation's press is reporting this Sunday, August 17. The 'Sun Herald' reports, "Russian troops doing in despite President Medvedev signing the peace plan." The troops are close to the Georgian capital and showing no signs of preparing to withdraw. And in pictures just in, thousands of people displaced by the Russia-Georgia conflict are being looked after in a camp just outside the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Australia has committed $1 million in humanitarian aid, but the International Red Cross is appealing for more. The 'Sunday Telegraph' reports, "Russia threatens to nuke Poland." Russia has warned Poland it faced a nuclear attack if it accepts a US missile interceptor base on its soil. 'The Sunday Mail' leads with "I Sold our Secrets to China." Jessicah Schipper's coach has admitted selling his training program to the Chinese swimmer who denied the Queenslander's dream of gold. The 'Sunday Age' has "Champion's Last Hurrah?" Grant Hackett faces the fastest 1,500m field ever in what may be his last race at the end of a brilliant Olympic career. The race is sure to stop the nation later today. On his way back from the Olympics, the Prime Minister gave a major lecture in Singapore, where he spoke of an Asia-Pacific century. For his perspective, welcome back to the program SHADOW FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much, Paul. PAUL BONGIORNO: Just going to the Olympics, I think Andrew Bolt wrote during the week that basically we're seeing the Olympic Games inside a prison - something like 200,000 troops securing Beijing. It's hardly the Olympic spirit, is it? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think the Games have been, you know, terrific success from a sporting point of view. Been a great week, so far. But there is a lot of local heavy-handedness, which I think just reminds us that China is, still, an authoritarian state. And, um, all that goes with it. And we shouldn't forget it. It's very important for us to build a strong relationship, but we have to be aware of the fact that it's not a democracy. PAUL BONGIORNO: With hindsight, and many people would say you didn't even need hindsight - you could have had foresight - do you think it was a mistake for the IOC to give the Games to Beijing? ANDREW ROBB: No, I don't. I think a lot of the pressure that's come on China over the last 12 months - last 6 months in particular - is because they've got the Olympics. So in a way, it's a good thing - there's been a lot of world attention on China - a lot of pressure. And I think it's got the potential to, you know, lead to further improvements. If China really wants to develop further, they have to keep a market economy growing, and that will inevitably bring more pressure through transparency and rule of law, and all of the rest. So, um, you know, I'm on the optimistic side of things. But if they want to improve the lot of their people, they'll have to have a market economy, have to grow that. And that will lead to, I think, more international attention and pressure, and hopefully, more change to human rights and other issues. PAUL BONGIORNO: Commentators during the week are seeing the rise of authoritarianism and nationalism. We have the example in China. But then there's worrying signs of it emerging in Russia. Now, we've got the situation in Georgia. It does seem that the President there maybe overplayed his hands. But this is a worrying sign that maybe the post-Cold War world isn't quite as comfortable as we were hoping. ANDREW ROBB: Well, the fact of the matter is that nationalism and authoritarianism - it has replaced, I think in China and in Russia, communism as an ideology. And it's a pretty potent mix. And I think the future is somewhat problematic in - especially in Russia, I think. We have to be aware of that. We have to try and maintain and build relations, but that growth of nationalism and authoritarianism - that mix - is a lethal one, in some ways. And it'll have to be watched. PAUL BONGIORNO: Was Australia right, first of all, not to send troops to Georgia as requested, but to send $1 million in humanitarian aid? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, I wouldn't quibble over that. I wouldn't quibble over that. It's an issue which is difficult for us to have any great impact on. It's on the other side of the world. But it's something - I think the lesson for us out of this is that, with that growth of nationalism and authoritarianism amongst some great powers in the world, it does shine a light on the fact that we have to maintain strong relations with our friends and with other democracies. So the US, Japan, Indonesia, India in particular - other big powers in the region. And we must look at the changing power balance that's taking place in the world. The US power will be diluted. It'll still be very significant, but it does mean that we, as a country, have to do even much more to maintain very strong bilateral relations, you know? So I think the Government's focus on multilateralism - there's always a role for that. But if it's at the expense of the strong bilateral relations we've built over the last 10-20 years, then it's a real danger for Australia. PAUL BONGIORNO: On a slightly different subject, later today, the Immigration Minister will go down to Griffith, where he will announce that Australia will embark on a pilot program for South Pacific guest workers - I think 1,000 to come to the country and basically help with the fruit-picking, which has been demanded by our farmers for a few years now. You've got concerns over this? ANDREW ROBB: The concern I've been raising for two or three weeks is that we've heard no detail. We've been told there was to be an announcement in two days time by the Prime Minister at the Pacific island forum - again, outside the country - to other countries, but not to Australians first. I'm glad they're going to make an announcement, but it's an insult, two days before it's formally announced at the Pacific Island Forum. This is a fundamental change to our immigration program. We have labour shortages - I know as well as anyone, given my background in farming. We should be looking at these sorts of schemes. But the Government should bring Australians into what it's looking to do. There are lots of issues there - what about some of the bad elements around some of the big cities in some of the region? How do they make sure that they don't end up here as part of the scheme? I'm sure they have covered this off, but we don't know about it. We've got 100,000 people more on the unemployment pile over the next 12 months - does the community want to bring in more unskilled workers when we're facing greater problems at home? These sort of issues need to be debated if the community is to be comfortable with bringing in unemployed, unskilled workers from the Pacific islands. PAUL BONGIORNO: When we return with the panel, the amazing disappearing Asia-Pacific community. In Singapore, there was another side to the Prime Minister's Mandarin skills - it was 'Kevin Rudd: The Musical'. (KEVIN RUDD SINGS CHINESE SONG WITH PRESCHOOLERS) KEVIN RUDD: That's lovely. That's fantastic. Well done, guys. PAUL BONGIORNO: You're on Meet the Press with Shadow Foreign Minister Andrew Robb. Welcome to our panel - ABC Radio National Breakfast, Fran Kelly and Glenn Milne, the 'Sunday Telegraph'. Back in June, Kevin Rudd took the region by surprise when he spoke of establishing an Asia-Pacific community by 2020. After a lukewarm response from the Asian leaders, and some confusion, the PM in Wednesday went in for some clarification on his dream. KEVIN RUDD: Let us be clear about what an Asia-Pacific community is not - it is not a monetary union, or even a customs union. And certainly not a political union. FRAN KELLY, ABC RADIO: Mr Robb, It's not a lot of things, this union Kevin Rudd has been talking about. As an ideal, it's not a bad one, is it? At least if we start having a conversation about security cooperation in this region. ANDREW ROBB: What it is an embarrassment. I've been around the region in the last two or three months, and everyone avoids it. They're embarrassed - they don't know what he's talking - again, we saw the other day, we heard what it was not. I looked that speech, you know, very hard to try and find out, "What is he on about?" It said nothing about what it is! People are scratching their head around the region. They don't want to talk about it because they don't really know what it is. If they think it's a European Union for Asia, they certainly don't what that. You know, and I think the Prime Minister - he has been caught out. It was a stunt. He did say before the election that he thought Asia should have a European-style union, eventually, in the region. So that was in his head. He is now running away from it at 100 miles an hour. It's an embarrassment, and he ought to move on. GLENN MILNE, THE 'SUNDAY TELEGRAPH': If it's an embarrassment and a stunt, should Dick Woolcott, the special envoy going around the region appointed by Kevin Rudd, should he come home? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I feel sorry for Dick. I don't know what - if the Prime Minister can't explain it what it is - what is Dick doing? What is he saying to people? I suspect he's making his own interpretation of what it might be. I feel sorry for Dick. And, you know, I don't think it's doing us a lot of good in the region. FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb, you mentioned before about us focusing on our bilaterals with countries like India. We have headlines today of Russia threatening Poland with a nuclear attack. You're saying Australia should be exporting uranium to India. Perhaps it's not the best time to be doing something like that. That's a pretty tinderbox region at the moment. ANDREW ROBB: Well, you know, how can we justify selling uranium to China and to Russia in an unfettered way? Any amount they want, we sell. And yet, we don't sell uranium to India. FRAN KELLY: But India's not signed onto the treaty. ANDREW ROBB: Well, but Russia and China are the five member - two of the five members - who can have uranium for weapons purposes. The fact of the matter is, India are looking to have uranium for clean-energy purposes. By 2050, 35% of all of their power needs could be met by nuclear energy. And that would save, you know, an enormous amount in terms of greenhouse gases. It is the one policy thing that Kevin Rudd could do, which would have more impact than anything else in Australia to lower global greenhouse gas emissions. But also, it would help build a relationship with India. And given this change in the power balance - they are a democracy, remember - China and Russia are nationalist, authoritarian states. We must maintain our relations, build our relations, with other major countries such as India - and the selling of uranium is one way of doing that for clean-energy purposes. PAUL BONGIORNO: Every two weeks, the Newspoll adds to Dr Brendan Nelson's woes. This graphic tracks the plummeting dissatisfaction with him as Liberal leader. His approval is now a negative 17 and heading further south. He is undeterred. OPPOSITION LEADER BRENDAN NELSON (Wednesday): This is my job. It's an important responsibility that I have, and I intend to keep doing it. GLENN MILNE: Well, Andrew Robb, you say the Rudd Government is hopeless. Ah, a lot of commentators are talking about them being oncers. And yet Brendan Nelson keeps going backwards in the polls. Isn't he the problem? ANDREW ROBB: Look, the Rudd Government - they've been blown around in the wind. They're not taking any decisions. They wilt. They're spinning their wheels. GLENN MILNE: Why can't you make any headway, then? ANDREW ROBB: Firstly, I've said it before - Brendan Nelson should be given every chance. But secondly, let's look at what's happening where it really counts. We had a Gippsland by-election with nearly a 7% swing against the Government. GLENN MILNE: Can I put it to you, Brendan Nelson wasn't the issue there - they weren't voting for Brendan Nelson, they were voting for you guys. ANDREW ROBB: All I'm saying is back in '96, Lindsay by-election, seven months after the election, 5% swing to the Government after a very tough budget and after the whole guns issue. This time, seven months after an election, 7% swing against in the Northern Territory. Again, the tone is set by, I think, there weren't major national issues, but the tone was helped by Kevin Rudd. Again, a 9% swing. You know, I do think the Labor Party frightened even to put up a candidate in Mayo and in line. GLENN MILNE: Brendan Nelson - will he figure in the WA election? I don't see Colin Barnett inviting him across the Nullarbor. ANDREW ROBB: I don't know whether he will or not. All I'm saying to you is that - one - Brendan should be given every chance. And - two - we are getting some traction in a political sense. I know the polls, I know all the rest. And we are getting some - we're putting good things in place in a policy sense. We're getting into - sometimes it's a bit ugly, the way we get there. But we're getting some good foundations in place, I think, for the next two years, and we are keeping the Government accountable. So on that score, I think Brendan is doing a very good job. FRAN KELLY: You must be worried that you aren't getting that traction, but your leader's popularity is going backwards. Which keeps the whole leadership question alive. You've got Peter Costello on the back bench, everyone talking about "Will he or won't he?" Let's put your cards on the table. His book comes out in September. How long after the publication of that book does Peter Costello have in your mind to declare his intentions - stay or go? ANDREW ROBB: Look, I think I said back in February that a lot of these sorts of issues should be dealt within six or seven months, and my decision hasn't changed on that. FRAN KELLY: So the deadline is dooming? ANDREW ROBB: Peter will make the decision himself when he's ready. But there are - there's a limit to it. But as far as Peter goes, I think there's been enough speculation by people within the party on Peter, and I think we should just let that run its course. FRAN KELLY: Is he damaging his potential stocks as future leadership material by sitting there sort of looking reluctant? The last thing the Opposition leads is a reluctant-looking leader. ANDREW ROBB: That's all hypothetical. I don't know what Peter intends to do. So I'm not going to entertain or speculate about it. PAUL BONGIORNO: Well, thank you very much for being with us this morning, Andrew Robb. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:841 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/839/Sky-interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=839 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=839&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/839/Sky-interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert.aspx Topics: Kevin Rudd’s trip to China, Olympic Games, climate change and China’s energy demands, human rights, trade, Liberal Party leadership FRAN KELLY: And as we were just discussing Kevin Rudd leaves later today for a four day visit to Beijing and after that he’ll touch down in South Korea and Singapore. The PM says he will, again, raise human rights concerns in private meetings with China’s top leadership. Well, Andrew Robb is the Opposition’s spokesperson on Foreign Affairs and he joins us from Melbourne. Good Morning Andrew. ANDREW ROBB: Good Morning Fran. FRAN KELLY: What’s your view, should the Prime Minister be there at the Opening Ceremony given China’s human rights record? ANDREW ROBB: We have felt all along that the Prime Minister of Australia should be at the opening and give encouragement to our athletes and represent Australia. This is a world event, sure it’s being hosted in China, and that’s important for China, but the fact of the matter is that it is a world event. The Olympics, in our view, is a vehicle for peaceful international engagement and it should be there to celebrate excellence and achievement by people from all over the world and Australia should be a part of that. And so we had encouraged Kevin Rudd - took him a long time to make a decision to go - but we did encourage him to be there and to carry out that important responsibility. FRAN KELLY: Well it looks like he’s having the red carpet rolled out for him in China. There’s 80 leaders going but he’s one of the few who’s got top line meetings while he’s there. He says he will raise the human rights issue directly; the issue of Tibet in particular, I think. Do you support his approach? It’s different to John Howard’s approach when he was leader of having direct conversation about these issues. ANDREW ROBB: Well that’s not quite accurate. John Howard did have direct conversations, invariably in the privacy of discussion with the President and the Prime Minister. But we also, of course, during the Howard years set up the annual human rights dialogue which was a very important initiative. FRAN KELLY: At official’s level, wasn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: At officials level, but it was a very important initiative. It was a first in many respects, and it did mean there for many, many years these issues were quite rightly and appropriately raised, as well as at a political level in discussions, so that should continue. There is no doubt that there are continuing human rights issues in China. Mr Rudd should feel in no way constrained from discussing the issues of Tibet and other issues. It is mportant. But I think if he going to make representations on other issues, certainly he must also get the issue of trade and the free trade agreement back properly on the table. Mr Rudd, of course, one of the first things he did was to put the free trade agreement with China and Japan on the back burner. Put all their eggs in the Doha basket. Now that those talks have collapsed he must reinstate the importance of the free trade agreement and put some serious resources, and here is an opportunity in the next few days to make that point very strongly and clearly to the Chinese. FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb you talked about the Olympics being a terrific sporting event focussed around peaceful engagement. Part of the Olympic charter in fact requires host countries to promote a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. Has China honoured that promise given what we have seen over the last few months? ANDREW ROBB: Well it’s hard to know the full extent of actions that have been taken or not taken or whatever. I do think that the fact of the matter is that pressure from international sources does have an impact. We saw, even in the last week or so, with the apparent attempt to prevent internet access of the games, pressure from world leaders did see a change to that. So there is no question that continuing pressure does have an impact and, as I said, the Prime Minister should not feel in any way constrained about discussing human rights issues when he’s in China. FRAN KELLY: If I could just remind you though of some of the events of recent months there were the protests, the crackdown in Tibet, which you and others were, of course, critical of, there’s suggestions that the Chinese government has rounded up thousands of dissenting voices in the lead up to the games, members of underground churches, Falun Gong. It has also made many people homeless - these people were protesting in Beijing just earlier this week. I mean, really, has China done enough to deserve these games? Was it a mistake to give the games to China yet? ANDREW ROBB: Well I do think that a lot of these issues would not have been prominent in the world if it hadn’t been the fact that China was hosting the games. So in many respects the fact that the games were given to China has provided world focus on a whole host of issues in China including, properly, the human rights issues and in many ways I think it has put a lot of pressure on the Chinese authorities but it also has alerted many of the ordinary citizens within China to alot of the issues and I think in time that will be a good thing because it has elevated those issues and it has meant that, I think, going forward there will be a lot more focus, a lot more pressure and a sense that China, if it is to advance as it is, on so many fronts, also has to need to advance on the human rights front. FRAN KELLY: Last year the Prime Minister promised to try and unite the world on climate change. It is on his agenda for this trip. What should he be demanding? ANDREW ROBB: Well again this is a bit ironic. Again one of the first things Prime Minister Rudd did was to unilaterally withdraw from the initiative to promote clean technologies through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, the so-called AP6. It involved the United States, Japan, China, India, South Korea and ourselves. It was the only international forum where China and India were a part of and seeking to reduce greenhouse gases. Now the Prime Minister should apologise to the Chinese and should look to re-instate something of that order so that some serious and major work can be done on research and joint projects and assistance from the wealthier countries to help countries like China and India in many respects became a laboratory for new technology. Much easier to put technology into new plants, new coal fired energy plants, than to retro-fit old ones and China is building so many there is a real opportunity and the Prime Minister has to address this issue not just through public lecturing about world leadership but on the ground, practical initiatives with China. FRAN KELLY: If we can come back to domestic politics now, your own backyard, so to speak. Would you like Peter Costello to lead your party? ANDREW ROBB: Look Fran, there has been more than enough speculation, I think, already around that issue and I’ve got no intention of adding to it except to say that I have been surprised at the acute sensitivity of the Labor Party. They would be better placed starting to make some decisions, rather than trying to shift the blame and denigrate Peter Costello. FRAN KELLY: Have you been surprised by the amount of talk bubbling up from within your own ranks though? There’s plenty of talk coming out from your own side. Talk of a friendly take over yesterday. ANDREW ROBB: I think there has been too much talk to be honest. I think Brendan Nelson has been doing a really commendable job. Peter Costello’s position has not changed since his announcement the day after the election. FRAN KELLY: Has he told you that? ANDREW ROBB: I’ve had no discussion with Peter on this matter. All I am saying is, I do think there has been too much airing of views on all of this matter and we should just settle down and do the work and keep the government accountable. FRAN KELLY: All right, Andrew Robb. Thanks very much for joining us. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Fran. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:839 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/840/Andrew-Robb-on-PM-Radio-National.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=840 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=840&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/840/Andrew-Robb-on-PM-Radio-National.aspx   ANDREW ROBB: There's been absolutely zero detail. We really want to know what all the secrecy's about. The Government said it would make an assessment of the New Zealand scheme and that's what we've been waiting for. There's been no detail on that. There's been absolutely no detail on the whole raft of important issues. Are other countries excluded in the region from participating? Is there a fundamental change to non-discriminatory immigration program that we've run in a bi-partisan way for decades now? All of these issues may well have been thought through and resolved but the public and the Opposition have seen none of the detail and yet the Government seems to be looking to sneak this thing in at a Pacific Island Forum later this month without any public discussion in Australia. …… SABRA LANE: Mr Robb disagrees, and says the Government must immediately release details for a debate. ANDREW ROBB: the National Farmers Federation has been consulted so should the rest of the community be consulted. The fact of the matter is that in New Zealand where the pilot scheme once it was put in is really no scope for reversing the decision. So if that's going to be the case here, pilot or no pilot if that is the case, there should be an opportunity for discussion before it's introduced, not after it's introduced. SABRA LANE: The Government doesn't need the Opposition's support to start the scheme, it can begin the trial through the flick of pen but the Senate could disallow it, if the Opposition gained support from the cross-benches. MARK COLVIN: Sabra Lane.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:840 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/834/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=834 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=834&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/834/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx The Rudd Government must allow debate on any proposed ‘guest worker’ scheme before it is imposed on Australians. The Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, and the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, have called on the Government to commit to a public debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme before a decision is taken. “The proposed ‘guest worker’ scheme will be a fundamental change to our labour and immigration laws and just calling it a ‘pilot’ scheme will not provide any insurance against it continuing because the experience from New Zealand is that once it is up and running, there is no way it will be scrapped,” said Mr Robb. “Some basic questions have to be discussed in the community and answered by Mr Rudd and his Government. “Does Australia want unskilled labour coming in from a number of Pacific Islands given there are half a million unemployed people in our country already and a projection in the Government’s own Budget that there will be a further increase of another 134,000 unemployed people over this financial year?” “Where will these people be from and what countries will be allowed to participate in any ‘guest worker’ scheme and what countries will be excluded? In the past, Australia has operated a non-discriminatory immigration programme,” said Senator Ellison. “In my travels in the region it is clear that many countries want to send their unskilled unemployed to Australia. Do we run the risk of offending these relationships if they were not to be included while others were,” said Mr Robb. “For example, Indonesian Parliamentarians have advised me that Indonesia’s current foreign policy priority for Australia is for us to take ‘guest workers’ from that country. Malaysia, the Philippines, China and others have a similar view. “Politicians in Papua New Guinea have told me that the composition of any ‘guest workers’ from their country would in large part be church-based students typical of those who came to Australia for World Youth Day and the recent visit by his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Most of these people are students looking for financial support to assist their studies. Would an extension of the current working holiday (backpacker) visa or student visas be a more appropriate solution?” Mr Robb said. Both Mr Robb and Senator Ellison said that questions need to be answered before Australians wake up one morning with a scheme that they can’t get rid of without offending our neighbours in the region. What would be the positive impacts on relationships with participating countries? What are the potential negative impacts to relationships with countries precluded from participation? What steps will be taken to ensure that ‘guest workers’ return home at the conclusion of their employment? How will we make sure that Australia doesn’t deplete the pool of necessary young workers in villages in these Pacific nations? What measures will be put in place to ensure that Australian job opportunities and wages are not compromised and that our public health and safety are not put at risk? What measures will be undertaken to ensure effective short term integration into Australian seasonal workplaces and communities? What pastoral care, accommodation and travel requirements will be imposed on employers? What steps will be taken to make sure that smaller employers aren’t disadvantaged by the requirements that must be met to hire ‘guest workers’? What risk do we run of including bad elements from the camps and settlements around some capital cities? What information and education will be supplied to foreign applicants before they apply and after they are selected on the Australian way of life? Will there be any restrictions placed on companies that can recruit and select ‘guest workers’? What precautions will be put in place to ensure ‘guest workers’ aren’t exploited by employers? What plans will be put in place to ensure that the workers selected are the most suitable and that the selection process has been free from political interference? What will be the consequences for those ‘guest workers’ who overstay or abscond? Will there be consequences for their employers or villages also? And, will there be a role for the trade union movement in approving those employers eligible for any ‘guest worker’ scheme? “While around 300,000 people will migrate to our country this year, support for Australia’s immigration programme is successful because it is based critically on the view of our population that the Australian Government has control of the system,” Senator Ellison said. “To open up our immigration system to unskilled labour from a very select group of countries, while around 600,000 Australians remain unemployed, represents a development that must be debated before it is imposed on the Australian community.”   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:834 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/835/Rudd-Guest-Worker-Scheme-must-be-debated-before-it-is-imposed-on-Australians.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=835 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=835&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/835/Rudd-Guest-Worker-Scheme-must-be-debated-before-it-is-imposed-on-Australians.aspx Speech by the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Australian Institute of International Affairs 75th Anniversary National Conference Melbourne, August 7th, 2008 Does Philosophy matter? · Before the 2007 election former Labor Leader, Mark Latham stated that “we have reached the zenith of policy convergence in Australian public life…Australia is having a Seinfeld election, a show about nothing.” · In a similar vein, since the fall of the Berlin wall, and Labor’s denouncement of socialism, you often hear people claim that there is no longer any difference between the major political parties; that philosophy no longer matters. · I strongly disagree. My observations of politics first hand over the last 28 years convinces me that the fundamental philosophical beliefs that drove Labor towards socialism over a century ago lives on as strongly within modern day Labor. · And it continues to provide a stark philosophical contrast to the conservative side of politics. · I refer to Labor’s fundamental belief that the State knows best. · I refer to Labor’s instinct that the collective good of the community is best understood and dictated by centralised authority, by an overarching set of rules which they see determining how people lead their lives, how they should think, how they should interact with one another, what responsibilities they should shoulder, how their lives and business will be ordered. · It is a “nanny state” view of the world · By contrast the liberal conservative view of life looks to promote the great freedoms – the freedom to choose, the freedom to be ambitious, the freedom to accept responsibility for your decisions, the freedom to lead your life as you see fit, as long as you don’t harm others. · It is a philosophy which celebrates the personal dignity of every individual; a philosophy which seeks the opportunity for every person to realise their individual aspirations. · This is not possible without individual freedom, without the exercise of individual choice. · Over extended periods in office these philosophical distinctions inevitably emerge as they progressively shape the decisions of Government. · It was evidenced domestically over the last 12 years by the growth of choice in education, the growth of choice in health, in superannuation, in the workplace …. and much more. Philosophy and Foreign Affairs · Some might ask, how does this relate to foreign affairs given the conventional belief that foreign affairs is bi-partisan? · This liberal conservative philosophy is based on the reality of human nature – namely that we all respond from a position of self interest – that we all want to be valued and respected. · This is as true for individual nation states, as it is for individuals. · As such, we saw this philosophy progressively guide the former Federal Government’s approach to foreign affairs. · We saw respect for the sovereignty and choices of individual nation states dictate the approach and priority we placed on strengthening bi-lateral relationships with our strategic and economic partners in the Asia – Pacific. · It has much to do with the fostering of respect, understanding and trust that comes from working hard on bi-lateral relationships. · We do not share Labor’s dogged belief in the virtue of global or regional governance and laws to deliver timely and meaningful outcomes. · Labor is putting the cart before the horse. · In our view strong bilateral relationships are the foundation and pathway to cohesive and effective regional and global relationships; not the other way around. · Australia’s involvement and increasingly effective participation in various forums and regional architecture was achieved on the back of strengthening bi-lateral relationships. · So much so that the individual relationships Australia enjoys with the United States, Japan, China, Indonesia and India grew to their strongest point ever over the last decade, yet grew simultaneously without damaging other relationships. Labor’s approach · Labor’s primary instinct is to support an over-arching set of international and regional rules, to see the establishment of a universal set of moral imperatives and laws that all nations should follow. · This instinct was on full display in June this year with Mr Rudd’s embarrassing proposal to create, within the next twelve years, a single European-style Union across the Asia - Pacific region. · The announcement, made with no prior consultation with any of our bilateral partners, presumed that the intrinsic merit of an over-arching rules based approach to regional security, trade, climate change and disaster response, would be obvious to all. It was not. · This presumptuous proposal marked a hasty return to Labor’s long standing view that Australia’s interests are best pursued through rule-based international systems. · Fifteen years ago, Labor’s former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans said in the Inaugural Sir Zelman Cowan Address, and I quote: “It is a logical corollary of Australia’s status as a middle power that we should always have been strongly committed to effective multilateral institutions – especially the United Nations, the only fully empowered body with global membership that we have. Middle powers, and smaller ones as well, by definition may need to find comfort in collective responses and rule-based international systems – in a way that may not be so necessary for countries with the clout of major powers, great powers, or super powers.” · Already in the first eight months of a Rudd Labor Government we have seen a rush to sanctify multilateral institutions. · The early announcement of Australia’s formal bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2013/14 signalled Labor’s eagerness to return to a tradition of favouring the pursuit of Australia’s foreign policy through multilateral institutions. · This internationalist tradition was further evidenced by: - the major emphasis on the Doha round of talks and the very dismissive references to bilateral FTA’s, especially in the early months - the cuts in funding to the teams responsible for negotiating the Free Trade Agreements with China and Japan - the unilateral abandonment of Australia’s involvement in the quadrilateral dialogue with India, Japan and the United States - the snubbing of Japan , our largest export market and closest friend on Asia, in the 17-day world trip by Mr Rudd, and in the months leading up to that trip - the unilateral withdrawal from the initiative to promote clean technologies through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, involving the United States, Japan, China, India, South Korea and ourselves - the creation of an international commission to end nuclear proliferation and secure nuclear disarmament; and - the EU for Asia – Pacific proposal. · This trend is misguided. · To put systems which seek to embody a process of international or regional law ahead of more flexible and targeted alliances and actions, is to deny reality. · The fact is we remain a world of nation states where trust, alliances and coalitions are still the things that most effectively stabilise the world in times of threats to world peace, such as in the 1930’s, or in times of economic opportunity, as in the 21st century. · As observed earlier, such relationships in turn foster broader forums, not the other way around. · The fact is the broader forums that facilitate the economic, security and cultural relationships throughout the Asia-Pacific region have emerged and evolved to suit the times. · The relationships have often emerged from bi-lateral relationships, or coalitions of countries, and have progressively been formalised and added to in an interactive fashion as circumstances dictate. · Structures include – - ASEAN - APEC - the East Asian Summit or EAS (or ASEAN + 6) - ASEAN Regional Forum or ARF - The US / Japan / Australia trilateral security agreement, - The Six Party talks - ASEAN PLUS THREE or APT - The Pacific Islands Forum - and others. · This range of structures has been a strength. · Real progress is achieved sooner rather than later. · Trust and confidence is built. · It has provided flexibilities, and an ability to accommodate the enormous diversity between countries across the region in terms of their stage and rate of development, security concerns, historical considerations and cultural differences of countries covering nearly two-thirds of the world’s population and over half of global economic output. · Evolving regional structures built on a culture of strong bi-lateral activities, and coalitions of countries joining together to tackle particular problems, has great continuing merit. · For example, in the next decade alone China will build four times as many coal fired power plants as exist across the whole OECD. · In this context it is unforgivable that the Rudd Government unilaterally withdrew from the AP6 forum to promote clean technology; the only international forum where China and India were committed to reducing emissions. · The growth in coal-fired power plants will be despite a huge push within China for nuclear and renewable energy sources. Clearly, CO2 capture and storage and other clean coal technology will be of great importance. · As it is much cheaper to put technology into new plants rather than retro fit old coal plants, China could well be a laboratory for this, with the help of a coalition of rich countries. · This is the sort of initiative that could well have emerged from the AP6 forum compared to the gridlock such a proposal would confront within some over-arching Euro-style union for the Asia – Pacific. Link between economic success and foreign affairs · Another important observation about the region, and the wider world for that matter, is that there is an inextricable link between a country’s economic success and its capacity to influence foreign affairs. · In Australia’s case, it is not a coincidence that fifteen years of uninterrupted economic growth coincided with a growth in Australia’s influence, particularly within the Asia - Pacific region. · The strength and robustness of Australia’s economy enabled Australia to profoundly assist and advise a number of regional neighbours during the Asian economic meltdown in 1997 - 98. · Again, our economic circumstances enabled Australia to answer calls for help in Bougainville (1997), East Timor (1999 and 2006), and the Solomon Islands (1999, 2001 and 2003); to lead responses to the Boxing Day tsunami and other natural disasters; to assist counter-terrorism and policing co-operation in Indonesia, the Philippines, India and other countries; to lead the regional response to the devastating impact of HIV – AIDS and to be at the forefront of responding to the threat of a possible bird flu pandemic. · As in business and other walks of life, a decade or more of success has given Australia increasing credibility and standing in bi-lateral, regional and world forums. · It is axiomatic that authority, leadership and influence are derived best from a position of success. · Mr Rudd would do well to remember to focus on protecting the outstanding economic legacy left to him if he is to go even half way to achieving a level of credibility that matches his soaring ambitions. · In a similar vein, the lesson of the last 60 years is, where countries have focussed on economic growth and a strong market economy, they win. · Whether large or small – for example, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan or China – success today has stemmed from embracing a market economy. · So, from a foreign affairs point of view keep an eye on the reforming countries. · Furthermore, as countries successfully embrace market economies it does lead irrevocably to the development of key elements of a democracy. - Greater transparency to attract investors - The rule of law - People demanding greater freedoms - People demanding a greater say, and - Less corrupt governance · So, liberalising economic systems leads to the liberalising of political systems. Realism versus Idealism · Finally, any assessment of the future must be based on a realistic assessment of the power balance within the world and within our region, not a blind faith in international institutions. · The last 35 years has been witness to an unprecedented period of peace in North East Asia. · The world has benefited from this peace and prosperity. · This order of the last 35 years has been based on the primacy of the United States. · Yet a realistic assessment of the future power balance will see China accorded more power in regional affairs, will see Japan accorded more power in regional affairs, along with more power to India and Indonesia. · The upshot of this is that the primacy of the United States will be diluted. · The great challenge must be to strive to maintain the active involvement of the US so that the region transitions smoothly to an appropriate power balance. · Such a balance must continue to involve the United States in a very significant way. · Australia can best influence this shift in the power balance from a position of continuing economic success and strengthening bilateral trust with these key neighbours. · Thank you.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:835 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/836/Australia-in-the-World-Past-Present-and-Future.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=836 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=836&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/836/Australia-in-the-World-Past-Present-and-Future.aspx “The decision by the Rudd Government to support the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s approval of the agreement between India and the USA, effectively condones the sale of uranium to India by other countries around the world. “As the Coalition has been saying, the Government had no choice but to reverse their earlier opposition to these sales if they were serious about climate change and reducing global greenhouse gas emissions,” said Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. “As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “The removal of the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources could see as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs being met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. “This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could propose. “Mr Rudd and his Government now need to go one step further and reverse the other half of their decision which overturned the Howard government agreement to supply India with Australian uranium, provided certain conditions were met, and help India supply greenhouse gas-free electricity to its growing population . “The Rudd Government's decision to overturn this policy was wrong and deeply offensive to India. “It is hypocritical in the extreme for Australia to refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. “As well, it makes no sense for Australia to sell uranium to China and Russia, but not India. “The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. “To block Australian uranium sales to India while supporting the sale by other countries makes no sense and is an affront to India. “It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.”   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:836 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/838/Interview-with-Paul-Barclay-Australia-Talks-Radio-National.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=838 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=838&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/838/Interview-with-Paul-Barclay-Australia-Talks-Radio-National.aspx Topics: Government’s proposed ‘guest worker’ scheme, Kevin Rudd’s trip to China, the Olympics, human rights, Paul Keating. KIERAN GILBERT: Now on PM Agenda, I spoke to the Shadow Foreign Minister, Andrew Robb, earlier in the day and I began by asking him about the idea of accepting guest workers from our Pacific neighbours with the government expected to announce a trial shortly. ANDREW ROBB: Our problem is that we don’t know what is proposed. We’ve heard just the other day that the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, advised that the Prime Minister would announce a program at the Pacific Island’s forum towards the end of the month. There’s been absolutely no detail or discussion or debate. There are some really substantive issue. There are some clear positives but also some clear negatives. We want to know the detail before we commit ourselves and, more importantly, the Australian people would want to know the details before they commit themselves to what is and would be, a very fundamental change to our immigration and labour laws. KIERAN GILBERT: But you did say, and you’ve said before, you said it in June this year, that you’ve witnessed among the farming sector, and tourism, hospitality areas in particular some serious shortages and there are some skills that can be conferred to a lot of young people in the Pacific nations. So you have been … you have argued in the past the strong positives in relation to such a scheme. ANDREW ROBB: I can see the reasons why we should look at it. And that is why we have said consistently we would look at the results of the New Zealand pilot because there are skills needs in rural areas of Australia. There are a lot of unemployed in many of the countries in the region. But there are issues we need to look at. We have not heard any detail about the results of the New Zealand pilot. The government announced another 134,000 people in Australia going on the unemployment list over the next twelve months. That adds to the 500,000 we already have. These are the sorts of issues that need to be discussed. Just what will be Indonesia’s attitude if this leads to only other countries being able to send their young people and not Indonesia, and not The Philippines and not Malaysia. As a country we have run a non-discriminatory immigration programme for decades. Now, if this one is going to just take people from certain countries, that’s a fundamental change to our immigration programme. And we should have a public discussion and not just have the Prime Minister announce, in Nuie later this month, a fait accompli before there has been absolutely any discussion take place in Australia. KIERAN GILBERT: The Immigration minister says its going to be… he said it in the last day or so, that the focus is very much the South Pacific and as a trial. So it looks very clearly that the government is going for a pilot scheme as well. Isn’t that the best way to engage in such discussion to run the trial and see how it works. ANDREW ROBB: Well again, what’s involved in the trial? I think it would be of interest to people. But secondly, one of the major conclusions that I observed out of the New Zealand pilot is that once a pilot was in place, it would almost be impossible to dismantle it. Once the Pacific Islands have gotten use to sending down young people it would be very difficult to turn around and say we’re going to turn it off. If we are going to debate this issue it should be before we make major commitments - not afterwards. At the very least, what we are saying is, if the government has done a lot of work, if it is at a very close stage to be making an announcement, why not allow the Australian people into the detail of that announcement, into the arguments for and against, so that if it goes ahead there is strong public support and people don’t feel that this scheme has been snuck in through the back door, that the debate’s been hijacked, that they’ve had no opportunity to express a point of view. KIERAN GILBERT: Well there’s certainly been a few points of view expressed in your party room, as you know. Your National Party colleagues have been arguing vigorously for such a guest worker scheme given the shortages, the working shortages, that they have in so many sectors. ANDREW ROBB: That may prevail. My point’s not to be for or against it. We have got a whole range of views that have been put and, of course, I’m as conscious as anyone of some of the labour shortages in Australia. But we are talking about bringing in large numbers; thousands and thousands of unskilled, unemployed young people. What provisions have been made to make sure we don’t get bad elements from camps and settlements around some of the capital cities? Those things may well have been though of. We’d just like to know what the government has done. Whether all the issues have been ticked off? Whether this has been properly assesses? At the very least the Australian community and the Opposition should have the opportunity to see what thought processes the government has been through , what detail it has considered, what the results of the New Zealand trial are - all of these issues so that we can make a decision, whatever that might be, which then has the support, the strong support of the community. KIERAN GILBERT: OK, in terms of, let’s just change tact. We’re running out of time unfortunately but in terms of the Beijing Olympics, the human rights concerns . The Prime Minister says he’s going to raise them there again with the Chinese leadership. Hard to be too critical, isn’t it, of Mr Rudd given he’s been so vocal on this? He was in Beijing earlier in the year and he’s going to again. ANDREW ROBB: I think the Prime Minister should not feel constrained. He said he will raise it, he shouldn’t feel constrained about raising the issue. There certainly are continuing human rights issues. But I do think, also, that the primary focus of the next week or two is about celebrating the great spirit of the Olympics; the excellence and the commitment of so many young people from around the world. It is an occasion, sure its being hosted in China, but it is a world event. A world event that does bring countries together in a peaceful way and I think that’s a really important part of having Australia represented at a political level in China for these Olympics. KIERAN GILBERT: Just finally, what do the Liberals think when they see the sort of spray dished out by Paul Keating on Peter Costello calling him a clodhopper, a nong, a slow actin dope? What do the Liberals think? ANDREW ROBB: More in sadness then anger, I think. Bit pathetic really. Some people ought to hang up their boots and get on with life and, I think, Paul Keating should think about that himself. KIERAN GILBERT: Well there’s a return of serve. Andrew Robb appreciate your time today, thanks. ANDREW ROBB: Good on you. Thanks Kieran. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:838 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/833/Australia--Israel-Jewish-Affairs-Council-on-return-from-Israel.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=833 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=833&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/833/Australia--Israel-Jewish-Affairs-Council-on-return-from-Israel.aspx The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Member for Goldstein, recently addressed a lunch hosted by the Australia / Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) after returning from a six-day visit to Israel. During Mr Robb’s visit to Israel he visited Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, Massada, Galilee, the Golan Heights, Tel Aviv, Sderot and Beersheba, and met with Israeli government Ministers and officials, members of the Knesset, members of the security forces and numerous members of the Israeli media. Below is an extract of remarks made during an AIJAC lunch held on Thursday, July 31st – “Firstly I would like to extend my thanks to the Australia / Israel Jewish Affairs Council and the Rambam fellowship for their support of this visit. “While I have been a student of the middle east since I was 17 years of age, my six day visit to Israel has greatly honed my perspective; although I am conscious of not appearing to be an “instant expert”. “I left Israel with a number of powerful impressions. “When I first arrived in Jerusalem at 4.45am on a Saturday morning, I went for a walk as the sun rose. I strolled past the King David Hotel and Herrod’s tombs. As I took photos of Mt Sion and the valleys of Jerusalem and looked out over the buildings, two things, in particular, struck me. “Firstly, I found it a profound spiritual experience. “The other thing was the inspired town planning and the decision to mandate the white buildings; it is unbelievably striking. “Another impression is that despite everything else that has happened in Israel over the last 60 years, it is a state that is flourishing and thriving. Not just economically, which I think is an achievement in itself, but thriving in spirit, in culture, in science, in technology, in agriculture and in industry. “Wherever we travelled it conjured that impression. “I was also impressed by the extraordinary geography. For a country a third of the side of Tasmania are deserts, lush agriculture, strong industrial areas, sophisticated modern cities, of course historical cities and sites thousands of years old. “It confirmed to me that the Israeli achievements and strengths derive from the Jewish brain and spirit as there aren’t many resources. “Another impression is the ever present threat of provocation. No incidents occurred while we were there; however, I was amazed by the way weapons and guns have become an extension of people’s bodies “While I was in the Golan Heights it was brought home that the only stable thing within the Middle East is instability. “In Beersheba I was reminded of the long standing connections between Israel and Australia, when I visited the memorial to the Light Horsemen and the military cemetery where so many young Australians lie. “Within Israel there is great diversity; one nation, many tribes. “Twenty percent of the population are Arab Israeli’s, there are Bedouin encampments in Negev and elsewhere and there is huge diversity within the Jewish community itself. “It is almost as though the Jewish community wanted a nation state so they could be whatever they wanted. “On the political front I left extremely optimistic about the spirit and resilience of the Israeli Jewish community, but pessimistic about the peace process. “At the heart of this pessimism is the sense that so many people in the Middle East do not accept the legitimacy of the Jewish Sate. It is a wrong, but it is an ever present fact that must inform future actions.”   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:833 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/837/Rudd-must-complete-back-down-over-uranium-for-India.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=837 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=837&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/837/Rudd-must-complete-back-down-over-uranium-for-India.aspx Topics: India, uranium exports, nuclear proliferation PAUL BARCLAY: As I mentioned Australian Foreign Minister, don’t know whether I did mention, but Australia Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has reaffirmed that the current government is committed to not supplying uranium to India until it becomes a signatory to that NPT. However this week India and the U.S. have thrown a spanner in those works by signing a bi-lateral agreement on civilian nuclear co-operation with the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Opposition’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson is Andrew Robb and he said that it’s ridiculous for Australia to sell uranium to China and Russia but not India and earlier today I asked him why? ANDREW ROBB: India has had a…certainly it has had nuclear weapons, like China, like Russia, but India has got an exemplary record in not selling on technology to any other country. India has got an emerging energy need, an existing but an emerging energy need of extraordinary proportions not dissimilar to China In the absence of being able to use nuclear energy for clean greenhouse gas reduction, then India will revert to dirty coal and I think the fact is that the U.S. deal with India to permit the sale of uranium to India for peaceful power generation purposes is a common sense accommodation of India’s circumstances. And we have seen sensible accommodations made for China in other regional and global matters. So in many respects it accepts the reality of India as a weapon state but allows India’s peaceful nuclear energy program to gain access to uranium. So for us to be selling that in an unfettered way and not to sell to India under exactly the same condition as we sell to China and Russia seems to makes no sense. PAUL BARCLAY: There is no danger in your view that the processed uranium that results from India’s peaceful nuclear power will not find its way into India’s nuclear bombs? In other words there is absolutely no way if Australia did sell uranium to India, as you advocate, that that uranium would, somehow in processed form, find its way into India’s nuclear weapons ANDREW ROBB: Well the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has in the last few days ratified the agreement between India and the United States, have confirmed or have concluded that this will in fact enhance non-proliferation because for the first time, 65% of India’s nuclear program or fourteen of its nuclear reactors will come under the stringent safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And the conditions for instance if we sold uranium to India, there are 44 countries that export uranium, but if we sold uranium to India and they signed the stringent conditions that we require then we would see that the uranium is followed all the way through the nuclear cycle until it is used for clean energy purposes and there would be much stronger control – there’s no control at the moment. PAUL BARCLAY: What about this new nuclear disarmament body announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during his recent visit to Japan. Does the Coalition support that initiative? ANDREW ROBB: We don’t oppose it. I mean anything that can be done in a global sense to assist non-proliferation and try and ensure disarmament. It’s part of a… what seems like, a more, media driven exercise in foreign affairs then something that’s material and sensible and considered and involves detailed consultation with strategic partners. So, sure, if its does do something well and good but we’re not even sure what it amount to. PAUL BARCLAY: That’s the Opposition’s Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Andrew Robb, on ‘Australia Talks’ where we’re were talking about nuclear proliferation. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:837 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/831/A-nuclear-India-is-good-for-globe--The-Australian.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=831 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=831&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/831/A-nuclear-India-is-good-for-globe--The-Australian.aspx Last Tuesday's vote of confidence in the Indian parliament supporting an international agreement on the use of uranium for clean energy production means that Kevin Rudd must correct the snub to India by reversing his earlier decision to abandon uranium sales for clean electricity generation. The Government must reverse its position on this issue, which has been described as the most crucial to face India since it gained independence nearly 61 years ago. One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to overturn a decision by the Howard government to help India supply greenhouse gas-free electricity to its growing population, provided certain conditions were met, under a agreement being negotiated between the US and India. The Rudd Government's decision was wrong, an offence compounded by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith telling India it was because of party politics. India's energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. This issue can make Australia a very important partner to India strategically. It is what India really wants from us. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India's energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy, otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. Two thirds of India's emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal-fired power stations will increase through to 2030 and beyond. As India grows, it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. If the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, as much as 35 per cent of India's total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants by 2050. This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Rudd could propose. Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year. As well, the conditions that Australia placed on any sales of uranium to India would have seen global non-proliferation strengthened by including India, a country the Government acknowledges has an exemplary record on non-proliferation. The majority of India's nuclear reactors are coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the first time. Smith has stated that India "has a strong record on non-proliferation" but that Labor will not change its position on opposing the sale of uranium to India because the policy is "long-standing and well known". This is putting grubby party politics ahead of the national interest. India is understood to be deeply offended by the Government's decision, and the manner in which it was conveyed. Influential foreign affairs commentators from India have denounced the decision in the strongest terms, labelling the scrapping of the pledge to sell uranium as "retrograde ideology, pathetic hypocrisy, misplaced non-proliferation zealotry", and accusing our Prime Minister of parroting "the same lame excuse as if he has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text". However, while the Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, at the same time Rudd and Smith say they have not yet made up their minds on whether to veto sales of uranium to India by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium? Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. The bottom line on all this is that by reversing Australia's commitment to sell uranium to India, Labor did substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India's feelings were trampled . It makes no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. Or to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology, which is greenhouse gas-free and already provides 16 per cent of the world's electricity needs. The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. To block uranium sales to India is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:831 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/832/Smith-confused-and-misleading-on-support-for-Rudds-Asia-Pacific-union.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=832 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=832&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/832/Smith-confused-and-misleading-on-support-for-Rudds-Asia-Pacific-union.aspx   Comments by the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, that Mr Rudd’s proposal for a European Union-style Asia – Pacific are on track are just another example of how quickly this Government has lost touch with reality. The Foreign Minister is clearly being disingenuous at best when he says he is ‘pleased with the response’ he has received in the region, said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “In the last month I have travelled right across the region including visits to Washington, Jakarta and Papua New Guinea. No one has raised this proposal with me and nobody in these countries know enough about it to discuss it when it is raised with them. “Over the same period of time there have been negative comments made about Mr Rudd’s proposal from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. “Since this proposal has been announced there has been embarrassing revelation after embarrassing revelation. “India didn’t even know anything about it until it was raised by the media. The US, New Zealand, Japan and Indonesia were not consulted before it was announced. “And the Prime Minister backed out of a planned visit to South Korea – a country that would be pivotal to any new regional union. “Foreign missions based in Canberra can’t even get any detailed information on this proposal out of the Government. “And the Prime Minister’s chosen envoy was only told two hours before the announcement and there have been no staff or funds allocated to make it work. “Then we have the ludicrous situation where Mr Rudd at first proposed a European Union for Asia but now back-tracks by saying it will be nothing like it! “This would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. It reflects very poorly on Australia. “On top of that, Mr Smith also seems confused about exactly what he is proposing by saying it could be either ‘evolution or the creation of a new body’. “This stands in sharp contrast to last weekend’s comments by Mr Rudd that this proposal would be ‘a modest evolution of what already exists’ and ‘centred institutionally on APEC’. “This is no different to the Howard Government proposal to include India in APEC and aim for closer regional ties. “The Government is spinning its wheels on so many policy areas, including the critical foreign affairs portfolio.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:832 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/826/Rudd-must-reverse-anti-greenhouse-gas-reduction-decision-on-India.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=826 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=826&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/826/Rudd-must-reverse-anti-greenhouse-gas-reduction-decision-on-India.aspx Last night’s vote of confidence in the Indian Parliament supporting an international agreement on the use of uranium for clean energy production means that Mr Rudd must now correct the snub to India by reversing his earlier decision to abandon uranium sales for clean electricity generation. Mr Rudd and his Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, must reverse their position on this issue which has been described this morning as the most crucial to face India since it gained independence 62 years ago. “One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to overturn a decision by the Howard Government to help India supply greenhouse gas free electricity to its growing population, provided certain conditions were met, under a agreement being negotiated between the US and India. “This was the wrong decision by the Rudd Government and by the Foreign Minister telling India it was because of ‘party politics’ the offence was compounded,” Mr Robb said. “India is understood to be deeply offended by the Rudd Government decisions, and the manner in which it was conveyed. “India’s energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. “This issue can strategically make Australia a very important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is the big issue. “While Mr Smith has in the past rightly referred to India’s incredible economic growth, the fact of the matter is that for this growth to continue, India needs access to reliable energy supplies. “And from a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India’s energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy – otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. “Two-thirds of India’s emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal fired power stations will increase through to 2030, and beyond. “As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “If the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. “This would have a much bigger impact on global greenhouse gas reductions than any domestic policy Mr Rudd could propose. “Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. “As well, the conditions that Australia placed on any sales of uranium to India would have seen global non-proliferation strengthened by including India, a country which the Government acknowledges has an exemplary record on non-proliferation, with the majority of India’s nuclear reactors coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the first time. “However, while the Rudd Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, at the same time Mr Rudd and Mr Smith say they have not yet made up their minds on whether to veto sales of uranium to India by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. “This makes no sense. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium? Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. “The bottom line on all this is that by reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India, Labor did substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. “The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India’s feelings were trampled on. “It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. “It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. “The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. “It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:826 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/825/Appointment-of-Tim-Fischer-as-Ambassador-to-the-Holy-See.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=825 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=825&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/825/Appointment-of-Tim-Fischer-as-Ambassador-to-the-Holy-See.aspx The Federal Opposition welcomes the appointment of the Hon. Tim Fischer as Australia’s first Ambassador to the Holy See. Mr Fischer has a distinguished record of achievement in all tasks that he has undertaken, including his term as Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade, Federal Member for Farrer and as a National Serviceman in Vietnam. “I know Tim to be a man of great integrity, compassion and strength. Tim will do a first class job. “Tim will be an effective and diligent representative for Australia in the Vatican and I wish him every success,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:825 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/824/Greenhouse-leadership-permitting-uranium-sales-to-India.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=824 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=824&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/824/Greenhouse-leadership-permitting-uranium-sales-to-India.aspx   Mr Rudd can show leadership at the G8 summit and achieve major practical progress on reducing global greenhouse emissions, by advising the Indian Prime Minister that Australia will not block the sale of uranium to India for clean electricity generation. Over the last few days India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has gained the required domestic political support to conclude the historic nuclear deal to buy US nuclear technology for clean energy generation. “For Mr Rudd to continue to oppose uranium sales to India is hypocrisy,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “It is hypocrisy to lecture India on making serious commitments on climate change and, while at the same time, stymieing India’s ability to produce greenhouse gas free power. “It is hypocrisy to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. “From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India’s energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy – otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. “As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “If existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. “One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to overturn a decision by the Howard Government to help India supply greenhouse gas free electricity to its growing population, provided certain conditions were met, under an agreement being negotiated between the US and India. “This was the wrong decision by the Rudd Government and by the Foreign Minister telling India it was because of ‘party politics’ the offence was compounded. “Tomorrow at the G8 summit, Mr Rudd must show real leadership on this vital greenhouse emissions issue,” Mr Robb said.   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:824 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/821/Andrew-Robb-to-visit-Israel.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=821 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=821&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/821/Andrew-Robb-to-visit-Israel.aspx Federal Member for Goldstein and Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Andrew Robb MP, will depart for a 6 day tour of Israel on Thursday 10 July 2008. The purpose of the visit is to explore the realities of Israeli political and social life and that of the broader Middle East, including the prospects of reviving a genuine peace process between Israel and its neighbours. “Ever since my teenage years, I could never reconcile the extraordinary contribution of the Jewish people against the persecution and discrimination they have historically faced,” said Mr Robb. “This tour will provide me with a valuable opportunity to further increase my knowledge of Israel, meet with its leaders and further strengthen the bond between our two countries.” As part of his tour Mr Robb will visit Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Bethlehem, as well as hold discussions with Members at the Knesset and visit the Holocaust Remembrance Museum and the Park of the Australian Soldier & Anzac Cemetery in Beersheva. “I am privileged to represent the Goldstein Jewish community, one of the largest Jewish communities in Australia,” said Mr Robb. “I have always admired the ability of the Jewish community to so steadfastly hold onto the essential elements of their Jewish culture while simultaneously integrating and contributing substantially to so many facets of the wider community.” The Federal Electorate of Goldstein has a strong and growing Jewish population. The 2006 Census reported that there are around 88,000 people of Jewish faith in Australia. The Goldstein electorate is home to almost 10% of the entire Jewish population of Australia. “The Jewish community is a very important part of the Goldstein community. I proudly supported a Motion in Parliament early this year celebrating the 60th Anniversary of the State of Israel and I am very much looking forward to visiting there,” Mr Robb said. Media contact: Andrew Hudgson (03) 9557 4644 or 0404 020 896   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:821 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/820/Its-time-to-recognise-Tsvangirai-as-the-President-of-Zimbabwe.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=820 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=820&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/820/Its-time-to-recognise-Tsvangirai-as-the-President-of-Zimbabwe.aspx The sham presidential run-off election in Zimbabwe warrants the Rudd Government officially recognising the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Morgan Tsvangirai as the legitimate President of Zimbabwe, and urging other countries to do the same. “Robert Mugabe has again been exposed as a brutal, illegitimate tyrant. History has shown us that he cannot be trusted and must be forced to step aside in the interests of a nation which is experiencing economic decay, social disintegration and massive human rights violations,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “On 29 March, the parliamentary election saw the governing ZANU-PF party lose its majority in the House of Assembly for the first time since independence, and despite Mugabe subverting the electoral process, Tsvangirai won a declared 47.9% of the vote for the first presidential election. “All independent analysts believed that Mr Tsvangirai had actually won the necessary 50% of the vote before the vote was tampered with. “The evidence of tampering is confirmed by the fact that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission took five weeks to announce the result of the first round of voting three months ago, yet it took less than 48 hours to announce the victory of Mugabe this time. This says it all,” Mr Robb said. When in Opposition Mr Rudd seemed to have all the answers about Zimbabwe but now that he is in government he seems surprisingly coy. Back in Opposition Mr Rudd talked about hauling Mugabe before the International Criminal Court, and of including Zimbabwe in the top five of Australia’s foreign policy priorities. Mr Rudd even warned the Chinese Government about propping up the Mugabe regime. Mr Rudd’s call for “tougher sanctions” is not enough. More must be done. “The Prime Minister must act decisively and start recognising Mr Tsvangirai as the rightful President of Zimbabwe and advocate other nations to do the same including China,” Mr Robb said.   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:820 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/816/More-evidence-that-Rudds-Asia-Pacific-union-was-a-stunt.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=816 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=816&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/816/More-evidence-that-Rudds-Asia-Pacific-union-was-a-stunt.aspx   Comments today by India’s External Affairs Minister that his country had not even been made aware of Kevin Rudd’s proposal for a European Union–style Asia / Pacific Union confirm once again that this idea was half-baked and smacked of a stunt. “Mr Rudd’s hasty, ill-conceived and half-baked proposal for an Asia – Pacific community similar to the European Union is an embarrassment,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, today. “Even former Labor Prime Minister’s Hawke and Keating have roundly rejected it. “And the way Mr Rudd has gone about it is exceedingly dumb and potentially offensive. It has everyone in the region scratching their head about what it is. “First we had the ridiculous situation where this idea was dropped on the table by the Prime Minister with hardly any detail – only 25 lines in a speech of over 220 – and now we have significant figures in the region confirming that not only where they not consulted before the announcement, they still haven’t seen any detail. “Earlier today the Indian External affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, confirmed that India ‘have not received any proposal’, have not been informed of the community idea and heard about the proposal for the first time from Australian media. “This would be a joke if it wasn’t so serious. It reflects very poorly on Australia. “It comes after it was confirmed by many nations throughout the region, including the United States, Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand, that they had not even been consulted before the announcement. “When Bob Hawke announced his vision for APEC it was a result of discussions that he himself had undertaken with other heads of state and Ministerial consultations in the region. “Mr Hawke even said at the time it came after launching a ‘substantial and concerted diplomatic effort’. “On this occasion even Mr Rudd’s chosen envoy, Dick Woolcott, only found about the idea two hours before the announcement and earlier this week said it ‘came out of the blue’! “This is amateur hour. “Mr Woolcott has also said this proposal needs to resourced and funded properly. “But this week the Government added even more humiliation to this alleged ‘idea’ by confirming that there has not yet been any staff, resources or funds allocated to the proposal.” “It is about time Mr Rudd concentrated on the job he was elected to do rather that racing about desperately trying to make his mark as an international statesman. “I say to Mr Rudd; avoid the stunts and get on with the hard work of Government.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:816 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/817/Smith-speech-on-India-the-time-to-reverse-uranium-snub.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=817 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=817&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/817/Smith-speech-on-India-the-time-to-reverse-uranium-snub.aspx   The Rudd Government can today correct the serious snub to India by reversing its earlier decision to abandon uranium sales for clean electricity generation. Today’s speech by the Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, about the importance of the Australian-Indian relationship is totally overshadowed by the Rudd Government’s stance on uranium sales to India, said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, today. “One of the first foreign policy acts of the Rudd Government was to overturn a decision by the Howard Government to help India supply greenhouse gas free electricity to its growing population, provided certain conditions were met, under a agreement being negotiated between the US and India. “This was the wrong decision by the Rudd Government and by the Foreign Minister telling India it was because of ‘party politics’ the offence was compounded,” Mr Robb said. “India’s energy security and needs are the major issue in the relationship between our two countries. “This issue can strategically make Australia a very important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is the big issue. “While Mr Smith rightly refers to India’s incredible economic growth, the fact of the matter is that for this growth to continue, India needs access to reliable energy supplies. “And from a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India’s energy needs by supplying the resources for clean energy – otherwise these resources will simply come from less environmentally friendly sources. “As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. “If the uranium deal succeeds, and the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. “And the conditions that Australia placed on any sales of uranium to India would have seen global non-proliferation strengthened by including India, a country which has an exemplary record on non-proliferation, with the majority of India’s nuclear reactors coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the first time. “However, while the Rudd Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, at the same time Mr Rudd and Mr Smith say they have not yet made up their minds on whether to veto sales of uranium to India by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. “This makes no sense. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium? Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. “The bottom line on all this is that by reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India, Labor did substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. “The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India’s feelings were trampled on. “It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. “It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. “The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. “The Foreign Minister should use today’s speech to announce a reversal of this bad policy. It is disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:817 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/818/Smith-needs-to-realise-the-world-has-moved-on.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=818 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=818&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/818/Smith-needs-to-realise-the-world-has-moved-on.aspx   The Labor Party’s position on the sale of uranium to India is to bury its head in the sand. The Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, has said today that India ‘has a strong record on non-proliferation’ but that Labor will not change its position on opposing the sale of uranium to India because the policy is ‘long standing and well known’. This is a ridiculous reason. Is the Minister saying that policies should stay the same just because they are longstanding? Even if the situation and the environment has completely changed? Surely the Minister should realise that the US-India nuclear deal (if consummated), climate change and India’s galloping demand for energy warrant a change of policy. It seems that here (as with higher taxes) Labor is stuck in the past and can’t remove its ideological blinkers when the world moves on. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:818 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/814/Speech-to-Parliament-on-Zimbabwe.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=814 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=814&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/814/Speech-to-Parliament-on-Zimbabwe.aspx   Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (9.28 pm)—I think I only have a minute to respond, but I am very pleased to rise to support this motion, which rightly condemns Mugabe’s regime for subverting the electoral process and, furthermore, for compromising the welfare of all Zimbabweans in his own brutal pursuit of holding onto power. I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this matter forward tonight. The future of Zimbabwe is once again at the crossroads. We are witnessing the destruction of a nation, an escalating crisis and a need for action. In the interests of time I just want to make one or two major points. We need the African leaders to act as one. We need to see African leaders like Nelson Mandela presenting a strong point of view—taking on, advising and pressuring Mr Mugabe. Other leaders should follow the lead of Archbishop Desmond Tutu and call for the resignation of President Mugabe. We, as a country, should look to the Commonwealth to convene a special heads of government meeting to put pressure again on the African leaders. One third of the Commonwealth heads of government members are African leaders. Action must be taken and it must be taken now. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:814 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/813/Rudd-needs-to-maintain-and-grow-the-strong-bi-lateral-relationship-with-Indonesia.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=813 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=813&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/813/Rudd-needs-to-maintain-and-grow-the-strong-bi-lateral-relationship-with-Indonesia.aspx   Mr Rudd’s two day trip to Indonesia should seek to make tangible advances on a relationship left in strong shape by the Howard Government. Advancing important issues initiated by the Howard Government provides an appropriate agenda for Mr Rudd during his Indonesian visit. The issues include: · Climate Change and deforestation · The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) study · Defence and Security co-operation; and · Effective disaster response Mr Rudd’s recent spate of half-baked, frenzied and undefined announcements threatens to distract Australia from the important bi-lateral relationships that were established under the Howard Government. The concerns that have been expressed in Indonesia over Mr Rudd’s Asia – Pacific Union proposal, and the lack of attention shown so far by Mr Rudd to our neighbouring country, needs to be addressed. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:813 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/812/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=812 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=812&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/812/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx Topics: New Zealand Guest Worker program, Chinese Foreign Aid, Olympics. GLEN BARTHOLOMEW: The Shadow Foreign Minister, Andrew Robb, says he sees merit in a guest-worker program which would allow people from Pacific nations to come to Australia on short term visas. Mr Robb, who’s now visiting New Zealand to assess a similar program in operation there, says it could benefit both Australia and small nations in the Pacific. The Shadow Minister is speaking from Wellington to Marius Benson. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, you said you went to New Zealand to look at the guest-worker program in operation there with an open mind. How are you impressed so far? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, well I’m midway through. Certainly, there’s been a very serious attempt through the pilot program in New Zealand to address a lot of the issues that could bedevil such a scheme. You know the thing such as ensuring the maintenance of the integrity of the migration program into New Zealand, and a real attempt to make sure they don’t deplete the pool of young workers in villages in these Pacific nations. That’s a really important point. And also making sure that they get the right workers, not any bad elements coming into New Zealand. So, from what I’ve seen so far they’ve put measures and provisions around the scheme which are really trying to address, in an effective way, those issues. MARIUS BENSON: So, if you get the right program in place, it could be good for the Pacific and good for Australia? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, certainly with the labour shortage that’s emerged after 12 years of uninterrupted economic growth and with the aging population. There are certainly—as we’re told and I’ve witnessed amongst our farming sector and tourism and hospitality areas in particular—some very serious shortages and there are some skills that can be conferred to a lot of the young people in the Pacific nations if these issues can be properly addressed. MARIUS BENSON: Can I ask you about another Pacific issue which is, there’s been research done by the Lowy Institute on the level of assistance being offered to the Pacific by China and it has dramatically increased over the past three years, from $33 million three years ago to last year, nearly 10 times that, just under $300 million. Does that raise question marks in your mind? ANDREW ROBB: Well, in part, I think it does reflect the development and the growth and the standing of China in the region. I think, logically, if they are growing at 10 or 12 per cent a year and doing what we’re all observing that they’re doing up there in China, the great economic success. They do need to shoulder a greater responsibility in the region and I think that’s an indication of it. But I think it’s important that those monies that are provided in to the region are wisely spent. MARIUS BENSON: The Prime Minister hasn’t said yet whether he’ll be going to China for the Olympics, for the Beijing Olympics. You’ve been saying he should be going? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I can see absolutely no reason. I think it’s an extremely important event not only for China but it’s one of the events in the world which really, I think, brings the world together in a really constructive way. It’s an event which Australian’s have performed magnificently over so many decades, one which has been prepared for in an extraordinary way by so many young Australians who will participate and it seems highly appropriate that our Prime Minister find the opportunity to attend and to throw his weight and his standing behind support for the Australian contingent that will be competing. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Marius. GLEN BARTHOLOMEW: Shadow Foreign Minister, Andrew Robb, with Marius Benson there. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:812 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/809/Interview-with-Mark-Bannerman--Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=809 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=809&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/809/Interview-with-Mark-Bannerman--Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx Topics: Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission, Asia- Pacific Union, India, New Zealand Regional Seasonal Employment program MARK BANNERMAN: A new international body to push for nuclear disarmament. That’s the vision revealed yesterday by Kevin Rudd after he visited Hiroshima, the site of the world’s first nuclear attack. The Prime Minister says the new commission will push for a review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and be co-chaired by the former Labor Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans. The PM wants Japan involved and will take up the idea with his Japanese counterpart in meetings on Thursday. The non-proliferation treaty is reviewed every five years, its next date of review is 2010. Andrew Robb is the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman and he joins us from New Zealand where is looking at the countries guest worker scheme, as it turns out at the moment. Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning Mark. MARK BANNERMAN: Now, we’ll come to guest workers in a minute but can I tackle this first thing that has developed. Is Kevin Rudd right do you think? The non-proliferation treaty is fragmenting, I think he says, and the world needs to get nuclear disarmament back on track. Is Gareth Evans the man to do it? Is this the right forum? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we’ll see I suppose. I mean, it’s always, it’s obviously a worthwhile thing to look at how we might rid the world of nuclear weapons. That has merit. But this proposal, again it’s becoming commonplace that Mr Rudd’s proposals seem invariably to be half-baked. We don’t really know a lot about what he’s got in mind. It is a pretty crowded field, the nuclear non-proliferation inquiry field. Gareth Evans, of course, has got a lot of experience and he’ll do as good a job as anyone, I think, in heading it up. MARK BANNERMAN: You sound suspicious. ANDREW ROBB: No, I’m not suspicious. There seems to be an announcement a day. He seems to be doing so much he really runs the risk of achieving very little on so many fronts. There is so little detail in this. I suppose the other thing that makes me cautious is, again, there is a grand announcement before there is any detailed discussions with other countries, even with Japan by the look of it. He’s going to talk to Mr Fukuda on Wednesday about it, or Thursday. I think with some of these things its best to tease it out at some great length with other countries to get some common ground and some agreed game plan before putting it on the table and really seeking to impose something on other people. We saw it last week with the proposal for an Asia Pacific Union covering half the world’s population. I mean, something of such order dropped out without any prior consultation, it really does make you a bit cautious about the prospect of success. MARK BANNERMAN: Well let’s go to the heart of what he appears to be saying. Do you fundamentally agree that the nuclear non-proliferation process, and also the treaty, is in danger of fragmenting? ANDREW ROBB: Well it certainly, you know, things have stalled somewhat. It is not appearing to be an appropriate vehicle at the moment either for removal of nuclear weapons, ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and it doesn’t, either, it some of the sort of the common day circumstances. For instance, India has got nuclear weapons but they also have got an extraordinary demand and need in the decades ahead for clean energy and, I would really feel that this is a backward step if it is used as an excuse to hold up any decision for many years on selling uranium to India for peaceful clean energy purposes. MARK BANNERMAN: Could I just ask you there, because your critics, that is the critics of you in govt, and I don’t mean you personally, but your party, would have said that you started to move outside that nuclear framework that we have had for the last 30 – 40 years by wanting to sell to India when it was not part of that process. Is that a fair comment? ANDREW ROBB: Well again that’s what I’m saying. The nuclear treaty has got some great inconsistencies when you look at the reality of today’s world. I mean you’ve got India, which is an economic super power emerging in Asia and they’ve got nuclear weapons. They will have the largest population in the world very shortly. Yet we’re selling uranium to China and Russia but not selling it to India for clean energy purposes. Now, there seems to be a great inconsistency here. And this commission should not be used as an excuse to avoid that difficult question because it is something that needs to be dealt with. India, you know, if it has access to uranium by 2050, 35% of all electricity needs will be met by greenhouse free nuclear energy. So, it is of great consequence to the world’s environment. You’ve got to balance lots of decisions here and, we need to see where this commission takes things. MARK BANNERMAN: OK, but might it not be that in fact a new commission like this creates a framework that those counties we’re talking about, including India, might come into the fold. ANDREW ROBB: It may well do, it may well do. That’s why I said at the outset looking at how to rid the world of nuclear weapons has got merit and this commission can add to that. It can look for some solutions but it shouldn’t be used to exclude or to stop or to prevent or hold up these critical decisions about the need to use uranium for clean energy generation for non-nuclear weapons purposes. So we’ve got to find a way through all this because there are some major environmental issues at stake as well. MARK BANNERMAN: All right Andrew Robb. I’m talking here with Andrew Robb, Shadow Foreign Minister, for Australia of course. You’re in New Zealand at the moment and you’re looking at the issue of guest workers. ANDREW ROBB: Yes. MARK BANNERMAN: Now, this is a vexatious issue with so many people. What’s your feeling about it having looked at it over there? ANDREW ROBB: Well I haven’t….I’m sitting right at the moment at the Port of Napier and just about to go and meet some companies that have participated in the pilot study in New Zealand. So over the next day or so, I’ll be doing my investigation. I just arrived last night. MARK BANNERMAN: Let me put it another way. In the past, I think it would be fair to say, John Howard showed some reluctance about getting too many guest workers into Australia. He had some concerns. Does the fact that you are there sand looking at this indicate perhaps a slight change of emphasis? ANDREW ROBB: Certainly the Coalition has got an open mind. New Zealand have been carrying out this pilot program for a while. The Coalition Government had been keeping an eye on the progress of the New Zealand pilot and if we were still the government I think we would be exploring closely the opportunities. It does need though, very careful assessment, I think. I mean, the reason people have been reluctant over the years is because we need to make sure we keep control of our migration program. That if guest workers arrive that they in fact do go back to their countries. Also, there’s a really important issue about ensuing that we don’t deplete the pool of necessary young workers in villages in these Pacific nations. And, again I think, that’s always been a concern about any guest worker program. And of course making sure we get the right workers not the bad elements that might come from some of the camps around some cities and things. All of these issues are not insurmountable but they need to be factored in very closely. They’re the sort of things I’m trying to get some assessment of while I am in New Zealand. MARK BANNERMAN: All right, Andrew Robb, thank you very much for talking with us this morning. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much, Mark. MARK BANNERMAN: I was talking there with Andrew Robb, Shadow Foreign Affairs spokesman. He’s speaking to us from New Zealand. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:809 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/808/Actions-not-words-solution-to-Rudd-snub-of-Japan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=808 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=808&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/808/Actions-not-words-solution-to-Rudd-snub-of-Japan.aspx   This week’s visit to Japan by Mr Rudd must see real progress on both our bilateral economic and strategic relationships if the damage done by the Rudd snub of Japan is to be repaired. Mr Rudd must put aside his ill-conceived and embarrassing stunt to create a Euro-style Asia / Pacific Union and focus on repairing vital country-to-country relationships. After six months in government all the talk in our region is about Mr Rudd’s obsession with China at the expense of all other important relationships in North, East and South-East Asia. To begin to get consistency and balance back into Australia’s regional relationships, Mr Rudd must start by repairing the bi-lateral relationship with Japan. Mr Rudd must: · Provide the long-term assurances on energy resources to Japan commensurate with the strength of the 50 year partnership; · Get the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) discussions back on track after downgrading the negotiations; · See real meat added to the bones of the historic 2007 Australia – Japan Joint Declaration on Security Co-operation; · Explain why Australia unilaterally abandoned the quadrilateral dialogue between Japan, India, the United States and Australia; · Explain why the announcement of this abandoned commitment to the dialogue needed to be made at a joint press conference with the Chinese Foreign Minister; · Tackle climate change, by resurrecting the Asia Pacific Partnership on Climate Change with Japan and other nations, on a bi-lateral and regional basis, given that the Budget insulted Japan by effectively destroying our shared partnership designed to reduce emissions growth in China and India; · Propose that Australia and Japan mutually agree to initiatives that each country should take to enhance nuclear disarmament in the Asia-Pacific region; and, · Explain to Japan what, if any, legal action Mr Rudd intends to take against Japan over whaling, given the iron clad campaign commitment to take Japan to the International Court of Justice (rather than the International Whaling Commission which the Government says is ‘not working’ and whose resolutions, according to Labor, ‘are not worth the paper they are written on’.) Japan is a true friend and major strategic ally. Mr Rudd has a repair job to do in Japan, and fast. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:808 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/807/Interview-with-Leon-Delaney--Radio-2SM.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=807 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=807&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/807/Interview-with-Leon-Delaney--Radio-2SM.aspx Topics: Asia / Pacific Union proposal LEON DELANEY: Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good Morning Leon. How are you? LEON DELANEY: Not too bad. How are you today? ANDREW ROBB: I’m well, thank you. LEON DELANEY: I see the Prime Minister has made a grand and visionary statement about revamping APEC and elevating it to the level of a European Union style body. It sounds big and impressive and important but what does it really mean? ANDREW ROBB: Well, everyone’s scratching their head to be honest. Honestly, I was at the speech, there were about 5 lines of discussion on this in announcing it. There was no detail. It looks totally half-baked in my view. It smacks of a stunt, to be honest, to divert attention away from the repair job he’s got to do in, with Japan who have been offended over the last few month, the Indonesians have been ignored, India has been offended with different initiatives this government has taken. I think there will be a lot of people around the region scratching their heads, because I understand there was no consultation of any consequence, it was put together in a couple of days, Richard Woolcott, I hear, was only told about it two hours before it was announced that he was the man leading the charge on all this thing. In some ways it’s sort of quite dangerous and almost embarrassing, that a proposal of such consequence to create a European style Union here would be floated this way by a Prime Minister seven months into the job. He’s still got to establish his credentials in the region. LEON DELANEY: The European Union of course has developed over a very long period of time and arose out of what was once known as the Common Market. But it has involved virtually the surrender of some level of sovereignty between individual nations hasn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: Well this is the thing. I mean, totally different the historical background, literally hundreds of years, which led to the European Union, I mean, two world wars. The history of it is fundamentally different but more to the point, as you say, the Union that has been created has led to a massive loss of sovereignty. I mean there is an unrestricted flow of workers across Europe. Can you imagine China, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, India, United States and many more seeding that sort of sovereignty; having no control over who comes or goes in their country, creating a common currency, having the Russians dictate to us about human rights through some overarching body that is created. It’s so ill conceived and so inappropriate in many respects to the multitude of different cultures within our region. It’s so half baked. This is..it sort of beggars belief that it could be dropped on the table like this and in many way it undermines our authority in the region to be putting such an impossible proposal on the table early in his Prime Ministership. I think it will take quite a lot to recover the credibility that is appropriate to our Prime Minister in regional affairs LEON DELANEY: Of course there may be scope for expanding and improving upon the role of APEC and maybe even evolving it into a new organisation. Is there an opportunity there, particularly in the area of free trade? ANDREW ROBB: There is no doubt about that. The thing is Mr Rudd, I think, is desperately trying to make his mark; be the statesman in the first three minutes in the job, and it’s been ill-conceived and rushed and I think a big diversion to head off other problems he’s got both here domestically and within the region. But the APEC that has been created over the last 20 years was the initiative of Australia. Bob Hawke first conceived it, Paul Keating added to it, John Howard added to it significantly. And it’s become a very significant forum of leaders. It can be expanded to head towards some sort of freer trade arrangement across the region which could be of enormous benefit but it’s a co-operative body. It’s not a body that comes in over the top of every country and takes control. And I do think there is enormous scope to expand APEC successfully. There’s a lot of other regional structures. I mean, Kevin Rudd says, you know, “we’ve got too many regional structures, get rid of them all and replace it with some overarching, controlling body”. It’s sort of the philosophy of the Labor Party really that there is some mystical, international group that can control the interests of each nation state. You know, the reality is all of these nation states, include Australia, we know best what’s in our own interests. We need co-operative forums. There are a lot of forums but many of them do different things. I think it’s evolved as a pretty effective set of arrangements. Things like APEC can be grown further off the basis of quite a good success rate already and Mr Rudd’s suggesting that all of that stuff is removed or stopped and we replace it with some overarching, all controlling, sovereign diminishing body is just, to be honest, ridiculous and it will not happen and all it will do is create an enormous diversion throughout the region and in many respects undermine out credibility. LEON DELANEY: Really it’s taken fifty years or more to develop the European Union and the EU is virtually a sort of super nation with a Parliament and the power to create laws that bind all of its constituents. It’s really the sort of model that would take a long time to achieve, particularly in Asia where so many of the cultural and political differences are vastly greater. ANDREW ROBB: Well exactly. I mean you’ve got to look at why the EU was formed. There were two world wars, there were centuries of issues there. There are a lot greater cultural similarities between a lot of those countries. You think about it; Vietnam, we think of as not being one of the major countries in our region, but if you put Vietnam into Europe it would be the biggest country, the biggest country in Europe - 84 million people. We have got such a huge population in this region, such diversity, such background. I mean, Paul Keating pinged it this morning when he said China has spent the last 350 years regaining its own sovereignty – what is the prospect of China now turning around in the space of the next 12 years and handing that sovereignty to some overarching body that has been created across the region? It’s just fairyland stuff. It’s impossible and it won’t happen. And it’s, it’s so out there that it will undermine the credibility of our Prime Minister in the region, and Australia in the region. We have been a very constructive contributor to the infrastructure and architecture of different bodies, particularly APEC, over the past twenty to thirty years, from both sides of politics, and we should protect that reputation and influence that we have been able to garner. LEON DELANEY: Any kind of organisation or union that involves cutting down national borders, providing for direct competition, would obviously mean that Australia would be exposed to conditions where Asian workers are being paid one or two dollars an hour for example and we would be competing in that market place. It would simply sign away our way of life, wouldn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: The European Union involves borderless flow of labour. If we were to copy that, as you say, there would be an unrestricted flow of worker into and out of Australia and, true of every other country in the region. That will just not be acceptable to the Australian people and I don’t think it will be acceptable, popular or considered by other countries in the region. Look, we’ve got a measure of co-operation born out of very strong bi-lateral agreements over the last ten or twenty years. One of the big things we’ve proven in the last twelve years is that building strong bi-lateral arrangements with Japan and China and Indonesia and India and the United States, these things can be done country to country very effectively without compromising our relationship with any other country. But more importantly these strong bi-lateral relationships in turn lead to strong regional infrastructure, not the other way around, not the other way around. So Kevin Rudd’s priority must be to repair the damage he’s already done with Japan , repair the damage he’s done with Indonesia, and with India so that we can grow those country to country relationships and then that will spin off into stronger regional infrastructure. He’s got the cart before the horse here and the priority must be with our country to country relationships - not the other way around - not trying to superimpose some all embracing body which seeks to assume the authority and the sovereignty of countries around the region. LEON DELANEY: Does it make so little sense that it is an embarrassment, is this something that will damage our reputation internationally? ANDREW ROBB: That’s my fear. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is three minutes in the job and is putting on the table something which will mystify, frankly, most of the experienced leaders around the region and it will, I think, undermine the very significant credibility that was built up by Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and John Howard over the last twenty odd years. We have had a significant influence over the cooperation throughout the region. But it’s born out of very strong country to country relationships and to put something like this on the table, as the new kid on the block as Prime Minister, I think, will undermine his credibility, our credibility and it is something of an embarrassment. LEON DELANEY: Andrew Robb, thanks for your time today. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much, Leon. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:807 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/805/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert--Sky-News.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=805 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=805&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/805/Interview-with-Kieran-Gilbert--Sky-News.aspx Topics: Asia Pacific Union proposal, Relations with Japan, Indonesia and India KIERAN GILBERT: Mr Robb, thanks for your time. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning. KIERAN GILBERT: This broad vision for the region, it’s hard to be too critical of it isn’t it? I mean, a better corporation in terms of security, trade, dealing with natural disasters, it looks like a good idea? ANDREW ROBB: Well, what is it? It’s to me it’s totally, it’s half baked in fact it’s absolutely zero detail in what he’s put on the table other than to say, it should be something akin to the European Union. Now that’s a huge step and you know it does smack to me policy on the run. There is no detail in this thing and in some ways it, you know, suggests it’s an excuse looking for an excuse or a diversion from the repair job that the Prime Minister’s got to do with critical relationships in our region. In the first six months he has managed to deeply offend the Japanese, to offend India, to ignore Indonesia, sure, he’s made a big fist at China and that’s important. But not at the expense of these other important relationships and the priority must be on strengthening our bio-lateral relationships and then we can start to look at broader infrastructure in the region. KIERAN GILBERT: But he’s doing that as well isn’t he? He’s off to Japan on Sunday, seven of his ministers, a number of his ministers have been to Japan and Tokyo in recent months and he’s going for four days next week, it’s the longest trip by any Prime Minister to Japan? ANDREW ROBB: Well he needs to. Because the damage that’s been done in the last six months is very significant it’s a long over due trip this. It’s the long overdue contact by the Prime Minister. See, okay, he might have sent other ministers but critically they have been looking at, is there a China bias now in Australia because of the long standing relationship of Kevin Rudd with China? That relationship that he has with China should be of enormous advantage to Australia. It should be, but, it almost means that capitalise on that relationship that the Prime Minister has with China, he has to almost over-correct with all the other countries in the region because there is great sensitivity about the balance and he I think has suggested to people there is a China bias in our foreign relations, it is worrying Japan greatly, worrying Indonesia, worrying India and he must do something, this trip is long overdue. KIERAN GILBERT: But he looks like he is doing something because, he’s going to this as I say, the longest trip to Tokyo by a Prime Minister, longest trip to Japan, he’s back there is three weeks for the G8 as well. ANDREW ROBB: Well and so he should be. You see this is the point, he’s got to make amends, he’s got to reassure them and so, I mean, I strongly support the trip. The words he said last night were very appropriate but they should have been said four months ago, five months ago not last night, not leave it for six months. This is and bear in mind; this is our strongest friend in Asia, Japan. Fifty years relationship the whole creation of APEC in the first place only happened because of their support. Our involvement in the East Asia Forum only occurred because of the support of Japan. KIERAN GILBERT: In terms of his not visiting them in the first round of his overseas trip, you were bagging him for being too long overseas? ANDREW ROBB: No, no. The thing is, what we said from day 1 after we sent gunboats after Japanese whaling ships, it was a highly provocative action. Now, it was our prerogative to take action but not to pick up the phone to Prime Minister Fukuda and just say as a friend ‘I just want to explain what we doing and why we’re doing it’ but he did not do that. Now we urged him and I understand that the department urged him, he did not do that and he’s, they’ve lost a lot of face in all of this and we’re neglected the relationships since the Prime Minister’s come into office, very critical four days must be there and must take a lot of real positive actions to get that back in order. KIERAN GILBERT: Mr Robb I appreciate your time. ANDREW ROBB: Pleasure. KIERAN GILBERT: Lee and Suzanne back to you. And hopefully we will be speaking to the former foreign minister, Alexander Downer within the next hour or so as well for his thoughts on this new East Asia proposal by the Prime Minister. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:805 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/806/Interview-with-Simon-Santo--AM-ABC-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=806 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=806&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/806/Interview-with-Simon-Santo--AM-ABC-Radio.aspx Topics: Asia Pacific Union proposal, Relations with Japan, Indonesia and India. Santo: But it’s Asian and Pacific leaders who ultimately decide the future of any new regional grouping and cooperation. And Mr Rudd’s message might not prove so palatable there. Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb: His first job is not to be making pronouncements, I think, about grand architecture of the region, telling China and Indonesia and Japan and India how they will be organised as a region by Australia in the next 20 years. It’s a little bit presumptuous. Once he’s demonstrated a capacity to build and maintain and grow strong bilateral relationships with all these countries, repair the damage he’s already done with some of these countries, then we can start to have some credentials, look forward and maybe influence the broader architecture that shapes the region. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:806 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/804/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-Governments-failures-in-foreign-affairs.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=804 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=804&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/804/Matter-of-Public-Importance-The-Governments-failures-in-foreign-affairs.aspx “The failure of the Government to manage, protect and grow Australia’s foreign relationships in the Asia / Pacific in a balanced manner.” Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (3.25 pm)—For all the talk of the Prime Minister’s foreign affairs experience, after six months in government all the talk in our region is about the Prime Minister’s obsession with China at the expense of all other major relationships in North, East and South-East Asia. Already there has emerged a serious concern about the lack of balance and perspective in Australia’s regional foreign policy under the Rudd government. Already it is clear that this government came to office with no clear plan for protecting and growing and balancing our critical relationships in the Asia-Pacific region. Outside of China the major actions so far appear to be designed to ‘trail our coats’ with old friends and with strategic allies alike. In just six months the Prime Minister has failed to pick up the phone to the Prime Minister of Japan to explain Australia’s gunboat diplomacy against Japanese whalers. It took 5½ months to make contact despite the great honour that Japan bestowed on Australia immediately after the election in inviting our Prime Minister to the G8 talks in July. That was an invitation which was purely at the discretion of the Japanese Prime Minister and yet there has been no contact despite highly provocative actions being taken by Australia against the Japanese. In just six months the Prime Minister has snubbed Japan and every other Asian country except China in his 17-day world tour. In just six months the Prime Minister has taken the axe to an already lean Department of Foreign Affairs by slashing over $100 million from the budget despite already committing Australia to an increased role in climate change, the UN, Asia and the Pacific and in Afghanistan. Again, this government does not match actions with words. It slashed $100 million from the Department of Foreign Affairs despite announcing a much upgraded program on the world stage. In just six months the Prime Minister downgraded negotiations of a free trade agreement with both China and Japan. In just six months the Prime Minister effectively told India that we do not trust them with our uranium by reneging on the agreement of the former coalition government to supply India with uranium for power generation, seriously reducing India’s capacity to combat climate change. In just six months the Prime Minister abandoned Australia’s commitment to the quadrilateral dialogue with India, United States, Japan and Australia again raising concerns especially with India and Japan about the Rudd government’s China bias. All of this is against a background where the standing and the influence of Australia had never been higher when the Rudd government took office. Yet all those actions have occurred in the space of six months, which have undermined that standing and influence. Over nearly 12 years of coalition government Australia found its confidence on the world stage and did not shy away from its responsibilities as a free nation. We were able to balance both of those important objectives. Over 12 years the coalition worked to strengthen simultaneously all of our key relationships. As a result the US alliance had never been stronger or our ties with Japan as broad and as deep. Relations with China had never been more productive. We enjoyed a close and frank relationship with the democratic leaders of Indonesia, and we welcomed India as a major emerging power in global affairs. Our approach to foreign policy was, first and foremost, directed to deliver greater national security and economic prosperity to Australians. It was grounded in realism to serve the national interest and was so ably led by our former Prime Minister and the member for Mayo. We ensured that Australia played an important leadership role in our own neighbourhood while also being willing to fulfil broader international responsibilities with confidence and with resolve. Much of that in six months in the region has been undermined. Years of painstaking work to strike that balance has been undermined. We strongly believe that Australia can and should make a positive and enduring difference in international affairs. Critically, our standing and influence around the globe, and in particular in our own region, was built upon an uninterrupted and superior economic performance compared with other major Western economies over the last 12 years, despite confronting the Asian financial crisis, the 2001 US recession, the tech bubble, 9-11 and the worst drought in 100 years. Much of our position, standing and influence in the region was born out of that superior economic performance. Good economic management assists good diplomacy, and good diplomacy helps to deliver good economic management. It enabled us to strike good relationships and to develop a measure of cooperation, especially with countries in the region, many of whom were very badly affected by the Asian financial crisis and the US recession, saw the aftermath of 9-11 in a serious way, and were affected by the tech bubble. Because of our performance as an economy we were able to provide cooperation and that in turn enabled us to weather those storms. But all of those things are about consistency and balance in our international affairs. In this context, Mr Rudd’s longstanding relationship with China and his Mandarin speaking abilities should be a great advantage to Australia. However, to fully capitalise on those attributes—that longstanding relationship, that knowledge of China—Mr Rudd needs to almost overcompensate with other countries in the region so that fears of China bias do not sour many other critical relationships. So far, the opposite has been the case. India and Japan have been offended—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Indonesia has been overlooked—gratuitously, unnecessarily. Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and many others have rated no mention—no consideration. In March, Indonesia’s defence minister made the most unusual public intervention when he publicly expressed concern that the Rudd government may be putting too much stock in its relationship with China to the detriment of its links with near neighbours. As our strongest friend in Asia, and our largest export market by a country mile, the only question the Japanese wanted answered when the Prime Minister took office after 24 November was: would he visit Tokyo before Beijing? Here is a man who is supposedly enormously experienced in the region and in international affairs. He understood the implications of not only not going to Tokyo before Beijing but ignoring the Japanese government and the Japanese Prime Minister for 5½ months, despite taking highly provocative action against whaling, despite receiving an invitation to the G-8 summit and despite all sorts of other issues—ignoring all of those overtures from Japan. The Prime Minister must have understood the implications of his actions. For Mr Rudd to then spend four days in China on a 17-day world tour and not find one hour to visit Japan caused a great loss of face in Japan. He must have understood this. He knows these things. It was an act of diplomatic stupidity or, the more I look at it and try to search for explanations, an act of diplomatic perversity. No doubt this action will serve to undermine Japan’s sense of confidence in its own position and in its relationship with Australia. It has set back our relationship a long way. This is our closest friend in Asia. We have had 50 years of a most extraordinary relationship with this country, Japan. And with six months of, in my view, ignorance, the Prime Minister of this country has severely undermined that relationship. Japan also lost face when our Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, made his offensively worded remarks on the abandonment of the quadrilateral talks between Australia, United States, Japan and India while in a press conference with China’s foreign minister. Can you imagine that? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up with the Chinese foreign minister at a time when a series of actions had made other countries in the region doubt and worry about the China bias? What were they thinking about to put our foreign minister up to announce the unilateral abandonment of the quadrilateral talks? This has worried not only Japan but also India, and it has confused the United States. They wonder what we are on about. This is disturbing. China is of course of great importance to Australia. It is called balance; that is what we are talking about. The quadrilateral dialogue of democracies was clearly abandoned to appease China. This is disturbing. China is of great importance to Australia, but we must not be in the position of tugging the forelock to any country. We must not be in that position. Further concerns have been raised in Japan and India and among South-East Asian countries over the lack of meaningful consultation with Australia over the Prime Minister’s preference to institutionalise and expand the six-party talks that were originally established to discuss North Korea—expand them to include Australia but not India or Indonesia. The Rudd government’s decision to reverse the former coalition government agreement to supply India with uranium for clean power generation is also a serious snub to India and reduces India’s capacity to combat climate change. Its grubby motivation for reneging on this understanding with India is borne purely out of party politics. And that is what they told the Indians—this is just a matter of party politics; this is not about the national interest. Nuclear power generation would be a safe, sustainable and nonpolluting source of energy for India. Clean nuclear power has the potential to meet 35 per cent of all of India’s expanded energy needs by 2050. Yet what do we do with 40 per cent of the world’s uranium? We put our heads in the sand. It makes absolutely no sense at all to sell uranium to China and Russia and not to India. And 95 per cent of the people on the other side would believe, accept and agree with that. But, no, party politics says otherwise. Indian government officials have said they were angered by the Rudd government’s pathetic hypocrisy on this issue. This issue alone could make an Australia a strategically important partner to India, the world’s largest democracy and an emerging regional powerhouse. It is the only thing they really want from us, the major thing. It is a big issue. To date the Prime Minister has offended or ignored most countries in Asia, and has failed to present a coherent policy towards Asia other than for China. Even in China, there are growing and persistent concerns about the way in which they are being discouraged from investing in resource projects in Australia. They are getting all sorts of funny signals coming out of Australia. They are being directly told to withdraw applications while this Australian government thinks about it. It is another watching exercise. But this is a dangerous situation. The Howard government demonstrated that Australia could simultaneously deepen and broaden all of these relationships. The Rudd government has a regional repair job to do, and do it fast. The Prime Minister should start tonight, in his address to the Asia Society annual dinner, and acknowledge the damage his 5½ month snubbing of Japan has done—(Time expired)   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:804 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/802/Rudd-rhetoric-on-Europe-exposed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=802 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=802&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/802/Rudd-rhetoric-on-Europe-exposed.aspx   Mr Rudd’s statements on a ‘new era of creative engagement between Australia and the EU’ and ‘dynamic contemporary partnership’ with the United Kingdom have been exposed as empty rhetoric in Senate Estimates today. “When Mr Rudd was in Brussels and London as part of his 17-day world wide tour, he constantly talked about a stronger relationship with Europe and the United Kingdom, yet the revelations of less Australian representation in these areas at the same time seems to make a mockery of Mr Rudd’s claims,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “It has been revealed today that there will be a further 5 overseas DFAT staff positions cut. This is on top of the 19 positions that were revealed earlier this year. “11 of those positions are from Europe – and the Prime Minister says he wants ‘a new, positive partnership with Europe’ and ‘a new broad based relationship’ yet he is cutting almost 10 per cent of the staff numbers in Europe. “Then we come to the ridiculous situation that the posting of Australia’s High Commissioner to London has been vacant for almost three months despite advice on possible replacements being supplied to the Minister for Foreign Affairs office six months ago. “This is clearly a government of spin and rhetoric. Their words do not match their actions,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:802 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/800/Cluster-munitions-outcomes-include-necessary-amendments.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=800 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=800&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/800/Cluster-munitions-outcomes-include-necessary-amendments.aspx   The Federal Opposition endorses the outcomes of the Dublin Diplomatic Convention on Cluster Munitions that have seen cluster bombs that cause indiscriminate harm to civilians banned. “The Coalition has long advocated a ban on those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians, while preserving the Australian Defence Force's requirements for force protection and interoperability,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “While the convention from the conference is only a draft, it appears that all of the concerns that the Opposition had with the original proposals have been addressed.” “Prior to the conference the Opposition indicated that we would be supportive of a position that protected civilians from indiscriminate harm, however, the Opposition believed that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) needs to be able to operate with allies and within coalitions with those who may not be signatories to the convention,” said the Shadow Minister for Defence, Senator Nick Minchin. “We also believed that ADF personnel must be able to be trained on these weapons so they can learn how to disarm them.” “It appears that Australia and a number of other countries have successfully added a number of amendments that satisfy these concerns. I congratulate the Australia delegation, including the Ambassador for Disarmament Caroline Millar, on this outcome,” said Mr Robb. “The former Coalition Government took a leading role on cluster munitions in both the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention forum and the Oslo process negotiations. “In particular, in 2007 the Australian Government consented to be bound by Protocol V to the Conventional Weapons Convention which obliges a nation to mark and clear, remove or destroy, explosive remnants of war present in its territory; record, retain and transmit information regarding use of explosive ordinances; and take precautions for the protection of civilians and humanitarian missions,” Mr Robb said. “The Coalition Government also provided funding to support the clearance of the explosive remnants of war in a number of countries, including Lebanon, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan,” Senator Minchin said. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 28 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:800 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/799/60th-Anniversary-of-UN-Peacekeeping-Operations.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=799 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=799&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/799/60th-Anniversary-of-UN-Peacekeeping-Operations.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (3.41 pm)—On behalf of the opposition, it is my privilege to support the sentiments just expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 60 years. In Indonesia in 1947, Australians were part of the very first group of UN military observers anywhere in the world and were, in fact, the first into the field. Currently there are 17 UN peacekeeping operations across the world and Australia is playing its part in the Middle East, Sudan, Cyprus—where Australians have assisted since 1964—and East Timor. In marking this 60th anniversary of the first UN peacekeeping operation, the approach of the tens of thousands of Australians who have participated in UN operations I think is typified by those Australian peacekeepers, led exceptionally by General Cosgrove, who in 1999 answered the call of help for the small and vulnerable community of East Timor. The East Timor operation was highly successful, but the events of earlier this year highlight that there are still many challenges to overcome and Australia must continue to stand side by side in addressing such challenges. What is more, the Australians involved in this ongoing peacekeeping mission helped restore Australia’s relationship with neighbouring Indonesia following our 1999 intervention. As General Cosgrove has stated: ‘I was extremely proud of the pragmatic, good-humoured, cooperative way the Australians cooperated with the Indonesians. It was a milestone in our relationship, both at the military level, which had taken some hits, and even country to country.’ In a similar vein, over six decades Australia has contributed over 35,000 Australian military and police personnel to more than 50 peace operations around the world. It is a record which all of us in this House and in our nation should be immensely proud of. We have contributed to rebuilding nation states from the bottom up. From Sudan to the Sinai, Australia can stand tall in the international community, and we all owe gratitude to the men and women who bravely represent us in such missions. Worldwide there are 110,000 people deployed in UN peacekeeping at the moment from nearly 120 countries. They deserve our thanks and appreciation. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Australians to donate to the Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project and to thank those individuals and corporations that have already donated. I note the minister’s comments that the Australian government has decided to seek election to a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2013-14 period. As stated by the opposition previously, this is a legitimate objective but, given the nature of elections to such positions these days, it must not be achieved by compromising our principles or national interest to gain a majority of votes from the, now, 192 member countries. Given the harmony and the common sense that has for so long characterised our nation, Australia is well credentialed to contribute to peacekeeping roles. I commend the professionalism and the effectiveness of all those who have carried out the roles on our behalf. Our continued participation is a good thing. It is a very principled and important obligation. It is a demonstration of our belief and support for peace and stability throughout the world.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 27 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:799 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/797/Regional-repair-job-for-Rudd--The-Australian.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=797 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=797&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/797/Regional-repair-job-for-Rudd--The-Australian.aspx For all the talk of Kevin Rudd’s foreign affairs experience, after six months in government all the talk in our region is about his obsession with China at the expense of all other important relationships in North, East and Southeast Asia, says Andrew Robb. Outside of China, the main actions so far appear designed to “trail our coat” with old friends and strategic allies alike. In six months, Rudd has failed to pick up the phone to the Prime Minister of Japan to explain Australia’s gunboat diplomacy against Japanese whalers. He also snubbed Japan and every other Asian country except China in his 17-day world tour. He has taken the axe to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, slashing more than $100 million from its budget despite already committing Australia to an increased role in climate change, the UN, Asia and the Pacific, and Afghanistan. Yet he has downgraded negotiations of a free trade agreement with China and Japan; effectively told India we don’t trust it with our uranium by reneging on the agreement of the former Coalition government to supply that country with uranium for power generation, seriously reducing its capacity to combat climate change; and abandoned Australia’s commitment to the quadrilateral dialogue with India, the US and Japan, raising concerns with India and Japan about the Rudd Government’s China bias. The Prime Minister’s longstanding relationship with China, and his Mandarin-speaking abilities, should be a great advantage to Australia. However, to fully capitalise on these attributes, he needs to almost overcompensate in the region so that fears of a China bias don’t sour many other critical relationships. To date, the opposite has been the case. India and Japan have been offended. Indonesia has been overlooked. Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore and others rate no mention. In March, Indonesian Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono publicly expressed concern that the Rudd Government might be putting too much stock in its relationship with China to the detriment of links with near neighbours. As our strongest friend in Asia, and our largest export market by a country mile, the only question Japan wanted answered after Rudd’s election was: would he visit Tokyo before Beijing? For Rudd to then spend four days in China on a 17-day world tour and not find one hour to visit Japan caused a great loss of face in Japan. It was an act of diplomatic stupidity or perversity. No doubt this action will serve to undermine Japan’s sense of confidence in its position and in its relationship with Australia. Japan also lost face when Foreign Minister Stephen Smith made his offensive remarks on the abandonment of the quadrilateral talks while in a press conference with China Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. The quadrilateral dialogue of democracies was clearly abandoned to appease China. This is disturbing. China is of great importance to Australia, but we must not be in a position of tugging the forelock to any country. Further concerns have been raised in Japan, India and Southeast Asian countries over the lack of meaningful consultations between these countries and Australia over Rudd’s preference to institutionalise and expand the six-party talks (which were originally established to discuss North Korea) to include Australia but not India or Indonesia. The Rudd Government’s decision to reverse the former government’s agreement to supply India with uranium for clean power generation is also a serious snub and reduces that country’s capacity to combat climate change. Nuclear power generation would be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy for India. Clean nuclear power has the potential to meet 35 per cent of India’s expanded energy needs by 2050. It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia but not to India. Indian government officials have said they are angered by the Rudd Government’s “pathetic hypocrisy on this issue”. This issue alone can make Australia a strategically important partner to India, the world’s largest democracy and an emerging regional powerhouse. Access to uranium is the thing India really wants from us. It is a big issue. It is expected that Smith will engage in frantic visits to Australia’s neighbours in the north and east during the next few months. The situation never should have got to the extent where such desperate action was required. To date, Rudd has offended or ignored most Asian countries and failed to present a coherent policy towards Asia, other than for China. The Howard government demonstrated that Australia could simultaneously deepen and broaden all of these relationships. The Rudd Government has a regional repair job to do, and fast.   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 26 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:797 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/798/Budget-undermines-Australias-role-on-the-world-stage.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=798 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=798&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/798/Budget-undermines-Australias-role-on-the-world-stage.aspx   Only weeks after Mr Rudd has got back from his world wide journey telling everyone that Australia will be more engaged, that Australia is back on the world stage and that Australia will be a “creative middle-power activist”, Mr Rudd has revealed that the government will cut over 300 jobs that carry out exactly this work. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) portfolio Budget Statement (Paper 1.9, page 25) the Government is cutting 305 jobs from the section of the Department whose “outcomes reflect the department’s primary responsibility for developing and implementing foreign and trade policies on matters of international security, trade policy and global cooperation that advances Australia’s national interests”. “This shows that many of the claims made by Mr Rudd and Mr Smith ring hollow,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “When Mr Rudd was in the USA he said he wanted to engage more with the US and the UN – but now he is cutting the staff numbers. “When Mr Rudd was in Brussels, he said he wanted to engage more with the EU and to resolve the Doha Free Trade talks – but now he is cutting the staff numbers. “When Mr Rudd was at NATO he said he wanted to be more engaged on an overall strategy on Afghanistan – but now he is cutting the staff numbers. “When the Foreign Minister was in Korea and Japan last week he said he wanted to maintain and advance relationships with both countries – but now he is cutting the staff numbers. “Mr Rudd has said he wants Australia to be more involved with the Pacific; he wants Australia more involved with Asia and he wants Australia involved in future six-party security talks – but now he is cutting the staff numbers. “Mr Rudd has even said he was serious about stopping Japanese whaling – but now he is cutting the staff numbers AND the funding. “The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is already a very lean organization. To cut staff numbers by over 13% in the Department’s primary area of responsibility must seriously compromise Australia’s foreign policy priorities,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 13 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:798 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/792/Government-abandoning-ship-over-whaling-promise.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=792 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=792&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/792/Government-abandoning-ship-over-whaling-promise.aspx   Revelations today that Australia is considering abandoning ship on its election promise to pursue international legal action against Japan over whaling are a humiliating back down for the Rudd Government and its embattled Environment Minister, Mr Garrett. “This is only the latest in a litany of failures by Mr Garrett after his much vaunted promises on whaling,” the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban water, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP, said today. “Sadly, for the many Australians concerned about whales, the ill-conceived, opportunistic action is likely to have been counter productive.” “Abandoning legal action, after the provocative use of gun-boats, and the refusal of Mr Rudd to pick up the hone to Mr Fukuda, will only harden attitudes in Japan,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “This very clumsy and ham-fisted chapter in Japan- Australia relations is yet another example of the poor judgement by the Rudd Government in handling many of the relationships in our region. “Indonesia and India can be added to the list of major regional relationships ignored or deeply offended in the first six months of the Rudd Government. “The Government spent millions of dollars by sending a gun-boat and aerial surveillance to monitor the Japanese whaling fleet and now it seems they are not even going to use the evidence that was obtained,” Mr Robb said. “Again, this is another example of the Government being more interested in populist headlines rather than getting results.” “The statement by the New Zealand Conservation Minister, Ms Chadwick, that there are ‘significant difficulties’ in pursuing legal action and New Zealand’s preference for diplomatic channels, rather than legal ones, is a poor reflection on the Australian Government,” said Mr Hunt. “Mr Rudd should have picked up the phone to his Japanese counterpart, Mr Fukuda, in the first place and much of this messy action could have been avoided. “I urge the government to take the Coalition’s proposal to establish a global whale sanctuary to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in June in Chile,” Mr Hunt said. “The actions of the Rudd Government have damaged Australia’s standing in Japan and put at risk Australia’s relationship with one of our closest friends and neighbours,” said Mr Robb. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 07 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:792 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/793/Australia-must-lead-response-to-cyclone-in-Burma.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=793 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=793&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/793/Australia-must-lead-response-to-cyclone-in-Burma.aspx   As the death toll in Burma continues to climb, Australia should be taking a significant leading role in responding to this disaster. “Reports now indicate that up to 100,000 could be dead as a result of the cyclone in Burma and up to 1 million people may be dislocated. “The $3 million in aid announced by the Government is a pittance. “As was the case with the tsunami in late 2004, Australia should be taking a lead in responding to this tragedy. “An Ausaid team should be made available and Australia should be prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars in assistance. “This is our region and Australia has a major responsibility to respond effectively. “The Rudd Government has shown a China-bias in everything it has done in the region over the last five months. “It has ignored or offended Japan, India, Indonesia and ASEAN. “The previous Government demonstrated that relationships with every part of the region can be maintained simultaneously. “Australia is well placed to respond to the situation in Burma due to the investment by the Howard Government in Australia’s ability to respond to regional crises. “In the last two budgets, over $100 million was set aside by the former Government to improve Australia’s response to emergencies in the region. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 07 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:793 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/790/Smith-must-get-Japanese-relationship-back-on-track.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=790 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=790&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/790/Smith-must-get-Japanese-relationship-back-on-track.aspx   Despite his denials, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith’s trip to Japan must have one goal - the restoration of Australia’s important relationship with Japan. “Mr Smith needs to make a big effort in Japan to combat the impression that has been created that the Rudd Government has a China bias,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “Since the election of the Rudd Government they have offended and confused the Japanese and damaged Australia’s standing. “They have – • Sent a gun boat after the Japanese whaling fleet as one of its first actions, without picking up the phone to Mr Fukuda to explain Australia’s case against whaling. • Announced the abandonment of the quadrilateral talks with the US, India and Japan at a press conference with the Chinese Foreign Minister after the Foreign Minister failed to raise the issue in talks with Japanese officials (and instead only raised it in a media conference while in Japan) • Cut funding for the team negotiating the Japanese-Australia Free Trade Agreement • And left Japan – our largest trading partner – off Mr Rudd’s 17-day, five nation, three country, round-the-world trip while spending four days in China, which gave offence to an ally and major trading partner. “The actions that Mr Smith must take towards Japan – our closest friend in Asia – must be only the start of the Government providing a balanced approach to the five major powers in the Asia-Pacific region; Japan, Indonesia, India, China and the United States. “Already, in less than six months the perceived China-bias of the Rudd Government has caused surprise and concern in three of these five key relationships; Japan, Indonesia and India. “The Howard Government demonstrated that it was possible to grow all of these relationships concurrently. “It is time for the Rudd Government to prove they can manage all of Australia’s relationships without offending others”. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 06 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:790 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/791/Cyclone-in-Burma.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=791 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=791&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/791/Cyclone-in-Burma.aspx   Australia’s contribution of $3 million should be seen as an initial instalment, and additional contributions of people and/or funds should be considered, subject to further assessment. “Australia is well placed to respond to the situation in Burma following the devastating cyclone due to the investment by the Howard Government in Australia’s ability to respond to regional crises”, said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, today. “In the last two budgets, over $100 million was set aside by the former Government to improve Australia’s response to emergencies in the region. “Now the Rudd Government wants to cut over $100 million from the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. “When you combine this sort of important work and the fact that Mr Rudd wants Australia to increase its role on the world stage, you have to wonder where the cuts will come from.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 06 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:791 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/789/Smith-needs-to-get-free-trade-runs-on-the-board.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=789 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=789&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/789/Smith-needs-to-get-free-trade-runs-on-the-board.aspx   The resumption of the sale of US beef to South Korea makes a Free Trade Agreement between Australia and South Korea even more important. “The prevention of the sale of US beef in South Korea had been a major hurdle between those two countries striking their own Free Trade Agreement (FTA),” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “Given the lifting of restrictions on US beef sales to South Korea, a subsequent US -South Korea FTA would place pressure on Australian meat exporters and farmers. As such, the Rudd Government must get moving on a Free Trade Agreement of its own with South Korea. “Now that the Government has the feasibility study into an FTA between our two countries in its hands, it is time for the formal Free Trade Agreement negotiating process to get underway. “In its first five months in office the Rudd Government has established a very ordinary record when it comes to Free Trade Agreements by downgrading the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with China and Japan. “I hope that the decision by the Rudd Government to cut staff in the Australian Embassy in Seoul is not a sign of the importance it places on Australia’s relationship with South Korea.” Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Mon, 05 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:789 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/788/Rudd-must-urge-Commonwealth-action-on-Zimbabwe.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=788 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=788&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/788/Rudd-must-urge-Commonwealth-action-on-Zimbabwe.aspx   The future of Zimbabwe is at a crossroads and urgent international action is required. Mr Rudd should call on the Commonwealth to play its part. “The Zimbabwean opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), now face an invidious decision over whether to contest the sham-Presidential election run off,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, today. “If they don’t run they obviously lose, if they do run under Mugabe’s ‘rules’, they will clearly lose also. “Now is the time for world pressure, from all sources, to be applied. The only way a Presidential election run-off will succeed is if there is strong and credible international election monitoring, similar to that of the UN-supervised election in East Timor. “Given the failure of South African President, Thabo Mbeki, the only way this credible international monitoring will be put in place is through the intervention of a significant number of African leaders. “As such, I urge Mr Rudd to call on the Commonwealth Secretary-General for an urgent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) to influence the actions of these African leaders. “The Commonwealth is well placed to influence events given that African countries, including South Africa, make up one-third of the membership of the Commonwealth and these nations are uniquely placed to influence President Mugabe. “Spanning one third of the globe, the Commonwealth must continue to promote the principles of democracy, respect for the rule of law and economic reform. “Australia should also be making sure that in any run-off Presidential election, that a delegation of Commonwealth election observers is established, including bi-partisan Australian representation. “Australia must seek to influence the Commonwealth and the United Nations to pressure Zimbabwe’s neighbours to bring about change,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Sun, 04 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:788 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/786/Rudd-must-stand-up-to-NATO-over-Afghanistan.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=786 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=786&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/786/Rudd-must-stand-up-to-NATO-over-Afghanistan.aspx   Following statements by the Prime Minister that “…Australian nation needs to prepare itself for further losses in the year ahead” in Afghanistan, the Federal Opposition has again called upon the Government to demand that European NATO members increase troop numbers, and remove the absurd conditions on their troops in Afghanistan which prevent them from helping in combat zones. “When Mr Rudd went to the NATO meeting in Bucharest earlier this month he failed to gain a commitment for extra NATO troops to be posted in southern Afghanistan to assist with the fighting in the most dangerous area, where the Australian forces happen to be,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. “Contrary to the spin, the Bucharest NATO meeting was a major setback for Australia. “It has been well known for some time that NATO forces in Afghanistan are critically under resourced. “Mr Rudd’s task at that NATO meeting was to gain a commitment for an extra 10,000 troops, and to see these troops posted to southern Afghanistan where the dangerous fighting is taking place, and where Australian troops are taking on the Taliban. “However, at that meeting Mr Rudd was sold a pup by the European members of NATO. A little over a thousand troops were committed by Europe, and on the condition that they not be posted to the hot spots in the south. “In particular, Mr Rudd came out of his meeting with the French President, Mr Sarkozy, warmly welcoming the commitment of French troops and advising that the French had agreed to support Australia’s bid for a temporary seat on the Security Council in 2013-14. Mr Rudd appeared as an apologist for the Europeans. He pulled his punches,” Mr Robb said. “Mr Rudd should have been insisting that European troop numbers be vastly increased, and that the conditions which prevent their troops being placed in fighting zones (apart from the Danes and Dutch who are in the fighting zones) be removed. “The NATO countries represent a total military strength of around 2 million troops yet have committed 47,000 troops to Afghanistan. This inadequate situation is made all the more problematic by the absurd condition placed on over half the troops by European countries that they not be positioned where they might be fighting the Taliban. “In other words, a majority of the 47,000 troops are prohibited from assisting Australian troops in the fighting zones. This is unacceptable. “Removing the caveats on European troops participating in combat zones would effectively double the fighting force in Afghanistan overnight,” Mr Robb said. This view is supported in comments by Australian Defence Association Executive Director, Neil James, that "You don't win counter-insurgency wars by sitting inside secure fire bases…You've got to get out there into the areas the insurgents are trying to dominate and dominate them instead” and terrorism expert Clive Williams that “..there is a general reluctance on the part of many NATO countries to be engaged in Afghanistan and particularly in the south where it is more dangerous.” “What kind of message is this sending to the Taliban? Either you are fighting a war or you are not,” Mr Robb said. “This is unfinished business for Mr Rudd.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:786 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/783/Rudd-cant-wait-on-Zimbabwe-any-longer.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=783 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=783&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/783/Rudd-cant-wait-on-Zimbabwe-any-longer.aspx   RUDD CAN’T WAIT ON ZIMBABWE ANY LONGER – AN URGENT COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING IS NEEDED. Actions over night in Zimbabwe combined with comments that the country is turning into a “war zone” mean it is time for Australia to call for a specially convened Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “The Zimbabwean Opposition Party has made it clear overnight that there needs to be even more international pressure brought to bear on Robert Mugabe for the election results to be released and for him to abide by the will of the people,” Mr Robb said. “I note that the Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, says that Australia is watching ‘what was occurring’ but it is time for Australia to contribute by calling on the newly appointed Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma, to convene a special Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). “Given the grotesque abuse of the Zimbabwean electoral process by tyrant Robert Mugabe and the failure of many regional countries and leaders to confront Mr Mugabe, there is an urgent need for the Commonwealth to seek to influence the situation, especially the actions of influential African leaders. “Given that African countries make up one-third of the membership of the Commonwealth, CHOGM is uniquely placed to influence the leaders of Zimbabwe’s neighbouring countries. “Spanning one third of the globe, the Commonwealth must continue to promote the principles of democracy, respect for the rule of law and economic reform. “A call on the Commonwealth to convene an urgent Heads of Government Meeting by Australia would be an appropriate action by a ‘creative middle power activist’ country. “The recent statements by the UN, the G8, the African Union and the South African Development Community show the need for international condemnation of what is occurring in Zimbabwe. “With Zimbabwe’s citizens ravaged by starvation, an inflation rate of 100,000% and an unemployment rate of 80%, rapid action is required. “The Commonwealth must influence Zimbabwe’s neighbours and the United Nations to bring about change,” Mr Robb said. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:783 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/782/Igniting-a-strategic-partnership-with-India-by-selling-uranium-for-clean-power.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=782 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=782&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/782/Igniting-a-strategic-partnership-with-India-by-selling-uranium-for-clean-power.aspx   IGNITING A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH INDIA BY SELLING URANIUM FOR CLEAN POWER - ONE BIG FOREIGN POLICY IDEA FOR 2020 SUMMIT. If the Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, is going to take one idea to the 2020 Summit this weekend, it should be to commit the Australian Government to selling uranium to India for peaceful power generation. This means reversing one of the first foreign policy actions of the Rudd Government of overturning the Howard Government’s commitment to sell uranium for power to India. It is estimated that by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. This issue alone can make Australia a strategically important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is a big issue. Mr Smith now says Australia’s relationship with India is a priority and he wants “to take that relationship to a new and different level”. But the Government needs to follow up its rhetoric with actions not just meet-and-greets. For the Government to make sure that its words match with its actions, they need to reverse their “party political” decision not to honour the Howard Government’s agreement to sell uranium to India for power generation. By reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India, the Rudd Government has already done substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. India is understood to be deeply offended by the Rudd Government decisions, and the manner in which it was conveyed. Influential foreign affairs commentators from India have denounced the decision in the strongest terms, labelling the scrapping of the pledge to sell uranium as “retrograde ideology, pathetic hypocrisy, misplaced non-proliferation zealotry” and accusing our Prime Minister of parroting “the same lame excuse, as if he has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text”. It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. How can the Rudd Government claim that Australia’s relationship with India is a high Government priority when it snubs this direct and heartfelt request from the highly respected Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy? Any agreement to sell uranium to India, with sufficient safeguards, will be good for Australia, good for Australian jobs, good for Australian exports, good for India, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. Mr Smith needs to get a positive outcome on this issue at the 2020 conference or his rhetoric will be exposed as hollow. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:782 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/781/Rudd-Government-should-call-for-Commonwealth-Heads-of-Government-Meeting-over-Zimbabwe.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=781 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=781&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/781/Rudd-Government-should-call-for-Commonwealth-Heads-of-Government-Meeting-over-Zimbabwe.aspx   The crisis in Zimbabwe warrants the Rudd Government calling on the newly appointed Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma, to convene a special Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. “The grotesque abuse of the Zimbabwean electoral process by tyrant Robert Mugabe and the failure of the 14-nation South African Development Community (SADC) summit and South African President, Thabo Mbeki, in particular, to confront Mr Mugabe, suggests an urgent need for the Commonwealth to seek to influence the situation,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “Mr Mbeki’s comments following the SADC summit in Lusaka, Zambia, over the weekend that ‘there is no crisis in Zimbabwe’ and ‘quiet diplomacy’ is needed only further heightens the need for the Commonwealth to use its influence with African leaders neighbouring Zimbabwe to protect the future of democracy in Zimbabwe, and end decades of economic decay, social disintegration and massive human rights violations. “Involvement by the Commonwealth would send a strong signal to Zimbabwe and its people given that one-third of the membership of the Commonwealth are African countries. “Spanning one third of the globe, the Commonwealth must continue to promote the principles of democracy, respect for the rule of law and economic reform. “A call on the Commonwealth to convene an urgent Heads of Government Meeting by Australia would be an appropriate action by a ‘creative middle power activist’ country. “With Zimbabwe’s citizens ravaged by starvation, an inflation rate of 100,000% and an unemployment rate of 80%, rapid action is required. “The Commonwealth must influence Zimbabwe’s neighbours and the United Nations to bring about change,” Mr Robb said. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:781 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/780/Foreign-policy-confusion-surrounds-Government-review-of-DFAT.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=780 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=780&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/780/Foreign-policy-confusion-surrounds-Government-review-of-DFAT.aspx   The Rudd Government’s review of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is more policy on the run. The Government’s approach to foreign affairs and trade issues is increasingly scatter-gun and confused. The Government is entitled to have a review into the functions of DFAT but it has to be a genuine review, with a clear sense of where the Government is going with foreign affairs and trade policy. This seems anything but. Mr Rudd and his Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, have announced a review AFTER they have already decided – •To cut over $100 million from the DFAT Budget (even though the Prime Minister has now committed Australia to a 4-year, $40 million bid for a temporary, two-year seat on the UN Security Council) •To cut 19 DFAT positions around the world (including the position designed to liaise with NATO; where Mr Rudd suffered a significant defeat with the failure to secure any, let alone 10,000, additional European troops in the combat zones in Afghanistan) •To slash $10 million from the budget available to the teams negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with China and Japan (even though the PM says he wants to re-start the Chinese negotiations) These cuts and reviews will put even more pressure on the people and resources within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the same time as they have a Prime Minister demanding that Australia pursue ‘active, creative middle-power diplomacy in partnership with the community of nations’, whatever that means. This is symptomatic of the Rudd Government. There are a lot of phrases, slogans and ‘symbolic’ announcements. But when you look for the detail it either doesn’t exist or runs completely contrary to what they have said. Mr Rudd has just spent three weeks overseas meeting on a country-to-country basis with world leaders; in fact the Prime Minister’s office uses this as justification for the trip. How convenient then that, the day after Mr Rudd’s return, the Foreign Minister says that Australia needs to shift “away from a traditional focus on county-to-country relations”. Confusion reigns. Media contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:780 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/779/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy--ABC-TV-Insiders.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=779 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=779&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/779/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy--ABC-TV-Insiders.aspx   BARRIE CASSIDY: Andrew Robb, good morning, welcome. ANDREW ROB: Morning, Barrie. BARRIE CASSIDY: That was a spirited performance yesterday, but you can't ignore the polls forever. At what stage does Brendan Nelson have to start producing some competitive figures, for both himself and the party? ANDREW ROBB: Well it's a difficult time at the moment, I mean, four months into a new phase in Opposition, really a big loss that we confronted, so, you know, Brendan along with the rest of us needs to get some traction. I do think once the Government starts to take some real decisions, we've seen endless symbolism so far, once they start to take some real decisions, how Brendan responds and how the rest of us responds will be a key indicator of how we might perform genuinely in the polls. BARRIE CASSIDY: Well, that implies that you are certainly prepared to allow Brendan Nelson an opportunity to respond to the Budget? ANDREW ROBB: Look, it's all of this is speculation. I read the reports about the usual unnamed sources. I can tell you that there is no general sense of the mood for change. And, you know, I for one, I voted for Malcolm. But Brendan won the contest, and I think we need to hold our nerve, and I think it's in the interest, not only of Brendan, but of the whole party, that we hold our nerve and give Brendan the opportunity to establish himself and to weld a team, and it's very important. He, I think, has made a solid start, he's done very well in shadow cabinet, and in the party room, he's performed well in the Parliament, and across the organisation he has been very well received. You saw it yesterday, very well received. So, he needs the opportunity, and we owe it to him, and we owe it to ourselves. BARRIE CASSIDY: In the background briefings that have been going on, though, one thought that seems to be coming through is that if this goes on for very much longer, this humiliation that you are getting regularly in the polls, that could damage the brand? ANDREW ROBB: Well, and I hear that, and there's a bit of merit in that, but it's again, it's four months. I don't think anyone's listening to us at the moment, you know, you had 12 years, Kevin Rudd's come in... BARRIE CASSIDY: But the problem is they are listening and laughing. ANDREW ROBB: No, they're not, they're not. I don't think they're listening, I mean, again I hear the reports about the listening tour, that's the only point of ridicule that I've seen. All I have read are reports of journalists reading transcripts and interpreting it as embarrassing. I've heard no report written or given which reports how people received it out there on the ground. Now, my colleagues have been out there meeting with Brendan, they tell me it's been a coverage, it's been a good trip, and there's sort of like a straw man being developed here and the thing is, let's get back to the substance. We need to be measured ultimately, how we keep this Government accountable. And the thing is, once they start with the Budget and other things to make some real decisions, then we will measure how they are going and people will measure how we are going. BARRIE CASSIDY: You said a couple of things you're doing right. What is he doing wrong? ANDREW ROBB: What's he doing wrong? Well, I think he's suffering from the fact that people aren't interested in us, at the present time. You know, we are four months into Opposition, we've got a Government which has continued to run lots of symbols to attract attention, they're at an early stage. They feel they can still sheet any responsibility for events in the economy and anything else over to the previous government. Now, that time is starting to change, and, you know, we're in the real time I think from the Budget, and that's when we can start to measure the effect of this or otherwise of ourselves, of Brendan, and all the rest. BARRIE CASSIDY: But can I suggest, those who are listening might be a bit confused. You look at his performance on Tibet, where he seemed to let himself down, he demanded that Kevin Rudd talk tough with the Chinese, and when he did, he said that he was troubled that he did so in public. ANDREW ROBB: Yeah, well I've talked to Brendan about this, because we both have been out there quite rightly saying that the Government had to be as tough with China on Tibet over human rights as they had been with the Japanese over whaling rights, and I believe that and I think Kevin Rudd's comments were quite appropriate in China. BARRIE CASSIDY: And that he did it in public? ANDREW ROBB: And that he did it in public. Brendan has said to me what he was seeking to imply with those comments in a radio interview was that the tough talking should have been, he thought, most appropriately said to the leadership first and then go public, rather than the other way around. That's a personal view, he was not seeking to contradict the comments that we both had been making for some weeks about the tough stand that Kevin Rudd needed to take. BARRIE CASSIDY: But it seemed to have more impact because he said it in advance? ANDREW ROBB: Well it may have, all I'm saying is that he was, as I understand it, and Brendan has said it to me, he sought to make the point that it may have been better the other way around, but not to walk away from the fact that Kevin Rudd needed to say what he said. BARRIE CASSIDY: And then he was on the listening tour, he was talking about the customer who had just five dollars to spend on petrol, because she was doing it so hard. The Rudd Government has only been around for a few months, that's a reflection on the Howard government, not on the Rudd Government? ANDREW ROBB: It was a reflection on affordability and on petrol prices, and on the circumstance... BARRIE CASSIDY: Which was the legacy of the Howard government, surely? ANDREW ROBB: It may be the function of the government, but the fact is, they are the government now. And they spent all of last year promising to bring down grocery prices, petrol prices, make housing affordability, make houses more affordable. It's four-and-a-half months, what have they done of any consequence, to address those issues, and it's quite right for Brendan to raise those sorts of facts, and the other thing is Kevin Rudd spent all of last year going around on FM radio stations, saying the same thing all year, because he was getting into different audiences all around the country. No criticism of that, no ridicule of that, Brendan Nelson does something similar, and he is pilloried for repeating some of the same issues around the country. BARRIE CASSIDY: You say what has Kevin Rudd done, but I think the public would get the impression he has been flat out since day one. ANDREW ROBB: Well, he's been flat out, that's an interesting point, Barrie, I think his trip overseas is a metaphor for the four-and-a-half months of the Rudd Government. What we've seen is the Prime Minister and in turn his Government skating across dozens and dozens of issues almost in a manic sense, and there's no clear plan, there is not strategy, there is no sense of where all this is taking us as a country, and to me it's very poor judgement that he is exercising, he's got to settle down and establish some priorities as the Prime Minister, and do them properly. You saw it overseas, he did the meet-and-greet very nicely, and I thought it was quite good. That's not unimportant, it's not unimportant, but there was no outcomes. Nearly three weeks, here we are, three weeks from the Budget, the Prime Minister's been away for a large part of it, I tell you I know from my experience in the last two years as a minister, the Prime Minister in those last few weeks is there, day-in and day-out, calibrating and making decisions about that Budget. It is a very important domestic issue, this Budget, and he's been around the world for three weeks, nearly, with no concrete results. Sure, the meet-and-greet, important and useful, but a lot of that could have waited, some of it couldn't. He could have condensed all of that into eight or nine days, and been back here doing what he is primary job is and his priority is. BARRIE CASSIDY: No wonder the journalists would agree with you that you could have done that in eight or nine days. ANDREW ROBB: No, not the whole lot, some of that, he didn't need to meet 12 world leaders. Sure, I think it was important to go and see George Bush, and I think it was important to see the Chinese. It would have been important to see the Japanese. He could have done all of that in our region, and put the rest... our relations because of John Howard and the performance of the last government, our relations with all of those countries are very, very strong, never been stronger. So there was not an urgent need to be on the road within four months, especially when this critical Budget is coming up, he's never framed a Budget, Wayne Swan's never framed a Budget, they needed to be here and to do that job. Now, they're skating across thousands of issues, we've got a summit next week, it's just manic, and I do think it's showing very poor judgement. BARRIE CASSIDY: I want to ask you about the torch relay. Do you have any sympathy for those protesters trying to disrupt it? ANDREW ROBB: The violence I don't condone for a second, but I certainly think that it's quite appropriate to use the relay as an opportunity to convey our distrust and our concern about what's happening in Tibet. And, you know, that to me is an important thing to have happened, and hopefully the Chinese, along with the sentiments being expressed by world leaders and by our own Prime Minister, hopefully the Chinese will respond. BARRIE CASSIDY: So it's quite appropriate for them to disrupt the relay when it arrives in Canberra? ANDREW ROBB: I think it's appropriate to voice their concerns, disruption which leads to violence or whatever, we don't need to do that to make a point. They can turn up by the thousands, that makes a huge point, and they're quite entitled to, that's what we defend, that's our values, and we must defend that. BARRIE CASSIDY: Now, your former Sports Minister, George Brandis, has branded what's going on in Tibet as genocide. It's not genocide, is it? ANDREW ROBB: Well I don't know. Our diplomats were sent there and were given permission to go there, and the government has not allowed our diplomats to tell Australians what they saw. Certainly, there's been a history over the last 40 or 50 years, and I talked to George, he said what a lot of his comments were, related to what he understood of the history, but I don't think we know the answer to that. I don't think we know what's going on in Tibet at the moment, other than the reports that have been unofficially filtering out. BARRIE CASSIDY: Now you've been critical of the outcomes at NATO in particular during Kevin Rudd's trip, and that the European countries shouldn't really commit to anymore troops. But you're not seriously suggesting that Australia can browbeat the Europeans into a position to offer up more troops? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we shouldn't pull our punches. This was the biggest error and fault in the whole trip. Australia is seriously disadvantaged by the outcome of that NATO meeting. It's been glossed over by Kevin Rudd, it's been glossed over by Joel Fitzgibbon, that was a major set-back for Australia. The Taliban are gaining momentum again in Afghanistan. Our troops are in a combat zone. There are now over 40,000 NATO troops, but half of them are not allowed to go into the combat zone where our fellows are, because the Europeans have put conditions on it. Now Kevin Rudd came out of the meeting with the French Prime Minister (sic), the French President, and said that he warmly welcomes the fact that they are putting a thousand troops in, there's a condition that they can't go into the combat zone, and at the same time, Kevin said, "We warmly welcome the fact they are going to support a UN seat for us." Now, he was sold a pup, he was an apologist for the Europeans, we need 10,000 more troops in the combat zones in Afghanistan or otherwise our troops are being disadvantaged and put in greater danger. BARRIE CASSIDY: But it just seems a bit critical though or I suppose a bit tough to suggest that had Kevin Rudd been more forceful with the Europeans, he might have got a better outcome. ANDREW ROBB: Well, if he's going to be forceful with the Chinese over Tibet, and put our point of view, he should at the very least come out of that NATO meeting and say, "This meeting has been a disaster, we've got a situation in Afghanistan which must be addressed and very urgently", and the Europeans have got to carry their weight. They're part of NATO, they can't just put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan, put a condition on them that they can't go into the combat zones, I mean, you're either in a fight or you're not. What does it say to the Taliban when half the troops that are going into Afghanistan are not allowed to go into the combat zone? BARRIE CASSIDY: Just finally, when you were last on this program you suggested that those long-serving Liberals who planned to leave the Parliament do so by the middle of the year, I think you said at the time. So far, Peter McGauran is the only one to put his hand up, do you think the rest are getting the message? ANDREW ROBB: Well, what I did say Barrie was that they needed to decide their future within six months, I think that was a reasonable thing to say, either they stay or they go. Now, I'm very confident that one, all the other fellows that are there in that situation are working hard, giving a lot of wonderful advice to colleagues - and me included - and working their electorates, and I'm very confident that they will make an appropriate decision. They will handle this appropriately in the months ahead. BARRIE CASSIDY: The problem for Peter Costello, of course, is that if he stays around as a mentor, and it sounds to me like that's what he is doing, his name will constantly come up as a leadership candidate? ANDREW ROBB: But it's his decision to take, he's been there 17 years and he's been Treasurer for nearly 12, he's made a huge contribution, he's entitled to have a reasonable time to make a decision about what he's doing and how he's going to do it. And in the meantime, while he makes that decision and I'm confident, as I say, all of them will take appropriate action, that while he's doing that he's working and he's make a strong contribution to the team. BARRIE CASSIDY: Thanks for your time this morning. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, Barrie. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:779 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/777/Rudd-DFAT-cuts-reveal-hypocrisy.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=777 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=777&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/777/Rudd-DFAT-cuts-reveal-hypocrisy.aspx   Joint Media Release with the Shadow Minister for Trade, the Hon Ian Macfarlane MP. Revelations that the Rudd Government plans to cut even more funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes a mockery of the Prime Minister’s claims that he wants Australian to increase its role on the world stage, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, and the Shadow Minister for Trade, the Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP, said today. These cuts of over $50 million comes on top of the $58 million of cuts that were announced earlier in the year – which are already having an impact on the demands placed on our diplomatic and departmental staff and the negotiations for Free Trade Agreements with China and Japan. “Mr Rudd likes to talk about Australia being an ‘active, creative middle-power diplomacy in partnership with the community of nations’, but these cuts show that he is not serious and like so many other initiatives it is about symbolism more than substance,” Mr Robb said today. “Apart from making the existing demands on DFAT even more onerous, Mr Rudd has then decided that he wants to add even more to their load by pursuing a spot on the UN Security Council, which will cost somewhere between $35 million and $40 million, and divert valuable resources. “Mr Rudd has just spent 17 days strutting the world stage talking up his own credentials at a series of meet and greets, which are not unimportant, but without any concrete outcomes.” "While Kevin Rudd has been jetsetting around the world his razor gang has been further savaging the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, exposing just how superficial the Prime Minister's claims are," Shadow Minister for Trade the Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP said. "These latest cuts show exporters' interests have been completely downgraded by the Rudd Labor Government. "Australian exporters have every right to ask exactly what will be delivered for them from Mr Rudd's international jaunt, and the answer seems to be very little. "Mr Rudd should have used his discussion in China on trade to announce a reversal of the Government's cuts to the team negotiating the Free Trade Agreement between our two countries. "A reversal of the multi-million cuts would show a genuine commitment to the Agreement and have helped to deliver some real outcomes." “Mr Rudd failed to gain the trade concessions and agreements necessary for Australian farmers to be protected under the Doha trade agreement and failed to gain a commitment for extra NATO troops to be posted in southern Afghanistan to assist with the fighting in the most dangerous area, where the Australian forces happen to be,” Mr Robb said. “And in the mean time he was sitting on a secret plan to make over $100 million worth of cuts to the very people who he has relied on during his three week round the world trip; he even demanded the head of the Department urgently fly to Brussels to meet him! Everyone knows Mr Rudd can talk the talk, but when it comes to delivering on the rhetoric, the Prime Minister’s actions speak louder than his words. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton (Mr Robb’s office), 0433 298 620 Kylie Barron (Mr Macfarlane’s office) 0413 229 957   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:777 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/778/A-seat-at-the-Council-will-cost-us-dearly--The-Age.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=778 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=778&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/778/A-seat-at-the-Council-will-cost-us-dearly--The-Age.aspx Op-ed by the Hon Andrew Robb, Shadow Minister Foreign Affairs. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's push for a temporary, two-year seat on the UN Security Council in 2013-14 is a legitimate objective, but not at any price. If Australia has to compromise its principles and national interest to gain a majority of the 192 member countries' votes, then the price of membership is too high. Yet Australia's bid was less than a week old before Rudd made his first foreign policy concession to secure votes. At the NATO meeting last week in Bucharest, the Prime Minister let the Europeans off the hook in regards to committing troops to combat zones in Afghanistan. His task at the NATO meeting in Bucharest was to gain a commitment for an extra 10,000 troops, and to see these troops posted to southern Afghanistan where the dangerous fighting is taking place, and where Australian troops are taking on the Taliban. However, at the NATO meeting Rudd was sold a pup by the European members of NATO. A little over 1000 troops were committed by Europe, and on the condition that they not be posted to the hot spots in the south. In particular, Rudd came out of his meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, warmly welcoming the commitment of French troops and advising that the French had agreed to support Australia's bid for a temporary seat on the Security Council in 2013-14. Rudd appeared as an apologist for the Europeans. He pulled his punches. The Prime Minister should have been insisting that European troop numbers be vastly increased, and that the conditions that prevent their troops being placed in fighting zones (apart from the Danes and Dutch who are in the fighting zones) be removed. The NATO countries represent a total military strength of about 2 million troops yet have committed slightly over 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. This inadequate situation is made all the more problematic by the absurd condition placed on more than half the troops by European countries that they not be positioned where they might be fighting the Taliban. What kind of message is this sending to the Taliban? Either you are fighting a war or you are not. Furthermore, the NATO meeting concluded without agreement on a properly co-ordinated and appropriate plan of action. The Bucharest meeting has been a major setback for Australia and doesn't bode well for the price Australia may pay under Rudd to secure a temporary UN position. The Federal Opposition will not guarantee support for a bid by Australia to gain a seat unless, and until, the Government provides satisfactory assurances and answers on a range of issues critical to Australia. Four years ago, the Howard government looked at what would be involved in securing a temporary seat on the Security Council. The hard-nosed assessment suggested that to secure sufficient votes, Australia would have to seriously reposition on some major foreign policy matters, and spend tens of millions of dollars opening diplomatic posts in countries of little relevance to Australia. For example, support of the nations within the Arab Gulf Co-operation Council would require Australia to significantly weaken its support for Israel. To gain the critical support of many African countries, Australia would have to soften its position on human rights abuses, particularly in Zimbabwe. Already we have seen Rudd pull his punches with the Europeans in regards to combat support for our troops in Afghanistan. Rudd must answer the question — where does he plan to get the necessary votes if he doesn't intend to make these and other critical foreign policy compromises to gain majority support of the 192 nations within the UN? Already, our strong alliance with the US means automatic loss of support from many nations. Any successful bid for a UN Security Council spot will also lead to a crisis in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade given the huge focus and resource requirements, particularly at a time when the Rudd Government is slashing $58 million from department staff positions in major diplomatic posts. Reductions in funding and personnel dedicated to negotiating the Free Trade Agreements with China and Japan are also likely. Many other questions require an honest answer. What real benefit will Australia derive from the temporary membership of the UN Security Council, particularly given the cost of lobbying, the important compromises that would need to be made to foreign policy, the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, and the irrelevance experienced by many other temporary members? Like many other "symbolic" gestures by the Rudd Government, this proposal for a temporary UN Security Council seat appears half-baked.   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:778 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/776/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=776 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=776&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/776/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx   GLEN BARTHOLOMEW: Kevin Rudd’s diplomatic skills will be tested over the next few days, as he meets China’s leaders who are already expressing open unhappiness with the Prime Minister’s criticisms of China’s treatment of Tibet. And the Opposition is putting pressure on the Prime Minister, saying he has to achieve results in China. After two weeks of travels which, they say, have been nothing more than meet and greet opportunities. For more on that we are joined by the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Andrew Robb, and he is speaking with Marius Benson. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, good morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good morning, Marius. MARIUS BENSON: I imagine the thing of the upper most of the minds of the Chinese authorities at the moment is the fairly troubled progress of the Olympic torch relay which is now locked in a secure place in San Francisco. Do you think the torch relay should go ahead in Australia? ANDREW ROBB: Yes I think, I think it should, but look the issue here is for Mr Rudd to deal with this diplomatically. He has had now nearly two weeks on the road and or over, and we need to start to see some concrete results out of this and, you know, he’s got a relationship with the Chinese which should allow Australia, in many respects, to play a brokering role between China and the Dalai Lama and I think Mr Rudd should be certainly looking to see that, he get agreement to some open dialogue with representatives from the Dalai Lama and the Chinese. MARIUS BENSON: Yet aren’t you being a little ambitious there? I mean is Australia really going to cause Beijing to start talking to the Dalai Lama, your just exaggerating Australia’s influence in that area, surely? ANDREW ROBB: Well, Mr Rudd claims to have a very special relationship with the Chinese, we are seen, and you know if he wants to be a middle power and an activist well he’s got to do some things to sort of match the label if you like. MARIUS BENSON: But we’ve had super powers like the United States, you’ve heard George Bush intervene on this and urge a dialogue with the Dalai Lama on Tibet, without effect. ANDREW ROBB: Well, look, my point is, that Mr Rudd has to take some initiatives I mean, we’ve seen him now for two weeks, there’s been a lot of meet and greet which is not unimportant but, if you’re going to be away from the country for three weeks at a time leading into you know, one of the most important budgets for many years, then you have to justify the trip and you have to get some concrete results. This is a major issue, it does, you know, it does start with the torch relay that’s becoming a symbol of the issues but it can only, you know, grow and cause greater problems, I think. and frustrations and difficulties. It is an opportunity, he’s there for four days, he’s got a special relationship, he should be seeking to take some initiatives, you know, we don’t even know as a country what our diplomats saw when they visited Tibet a week ago. We got access as a country to Tibet but the government has refused to provide information as to what the situation was. I think we need all cards on the table here, and we need Mr Rudd taking some concrete initiatives and looking to help the Chinese move this issue along. MARIUS BENSON: What we do know apparently according to reports is that China has issued a formal protest to Australia over the statements on Tibet by Kevin Rudd. Do you think he should go beyond those statements and are you concerned by China issuing that formal diplomatic protest? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think the consistency and balance in the region, the Prime Minister needs to be as tough with the Chinese over human rights in Tibet as he has been with the Japanese over whale rights and I think that’s the sort of yard stick that needs to be used to deal with this issue ... MARIUS BENSON: Do you want him to talk tougher though? There’s already a formal protest in. ANDREW ROBB: Well, I am not familiar with exactly what they are protesting over and I’m not going to make judgements on that. All I’m saying is, I think, Mr Rudd needs to, you know, not just say that he’s raised the issue with private talks, he needs to seek to make some concrete recommendations and to offer it at least to, for Australia to help the situation as a as not a major power to be in a position to help broker some talks between representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese and seek to move this issue along so that the Olympic Games can be conducted and be a great celebration of the relationship between so many countries around the world. MARIUS BENSON: Very quickly, do you think Kevin Rudd should attend the Olympic opening ceremony? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think, that’s a matter for him. I mean, there’s a lot of water under the bridge yet and I do think that if the right initiatives are taken at this stage, to move forward the issues in Tibet in a positive and constructive way, then, I think you know we should have a situation later in the year where we all world leaders feel comfortable going to the opening of the Olympics and in fact celebrating the Olympics. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, I’ll leave it there. Thank you very much. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Marius.   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:776 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/775/Mr-Rudds-visit-to-China-needs-to-match-the-hype.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=775 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=775&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/775/Mr-Rudds-visit-to-China-needs-to-match-the-hype.aspx   Mr Rudd now reaches China, having spent 25% of his term as Prime Minister out of the country, - the final leg of his 17-day, 5 country, 3 continent, around the world trip. The test of these overseas trips by a Prime Minister is what is achieved in terms of substance for the Australian people. Following the major setback for Australia at the Bucharest NATO meeting where the Government failed to get a commitment of any additional European troops into the fighting zones in southern Afghanistan, real outcomes are required in China. The first priority in Mr Rudd’s trip should be to send a message to the countries of the Asian region that he will have a balanced approach to the four major powers in the region; Japan, Indonesia, India and China: • The Prime Minister needs to show consistency and balance and be as tough with the Chinese over human rights in Tibet, as he has been with the Japanese over whale rights. • The test of success of Mr Rudd’s visit is whether he can get China to agree to open a dialogue with representatives of the Dalai Lama. Australia should offer to play a role in brokering these talks. The Prime Minister needs to show that he can raise these issues, as John Howard did, while at the same time managing the commercial interests of Australian companies such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto on iron ore. • Following yesterday’s announcement that New Zealand has signed a Free Trade Agreement with China, Mr Rudd must use his visit to announce a reversal of the Government’s cuts to the team negotiating the Free Trade Agreement between our two countries. • On climate change, Mr Rudd should secure a commitment from China that they intend to be a signatory to any post-Kyoto environmental agreement and that they intend to cut emissions as part of any post- Kyoto environmental agreement. A demonstration of Mr Rudd’s commitment to addressing climate change would be gain agreement to further projects through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a highly-successful process initiated by the former Coalition Government. This should involve a commitment to further new projects, especially in the areas of clean coal technology, high-efficiency solar power stations and the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. • On regional security, eliciting a public commitment from China to the plan he announced in Washington for Australian inclusion in the US proposal for a permanent NATO-style body in Asia, or the expansion and continuation of the six-party talks (originally over North Korea). • Finally, I ask will Mr Rudd provide confirmation of whether he will be meeting with his friend Mr Ian Tang, from Beijing AustChina Technology, during his visit to China? And explain, if not, why not given that Mr Tang’s little known Chinese company is now the fourth largest private donor to the NSW branch of the Labor Party? After failing to gain the trade concessions and agreements necessary for Australian farmers to be protected under the Doha trade agreement and failing to gain a commitment for extra NATO troops to be posted in southern Afghanistan to assist with the fighting in the most dangerous area, where the Australian forces happen to be, Mr Rudd’s arrival in China gives him a final chance to achieve some concrete policy results, and not just more meet-and-greet. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:775 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/774/Rudd-makes-his-first-foreign-policy-concession-to-secure-votes-for-UN-role.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=774 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=774&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/774/Rudd-makes-his-first-foreign-policy-concession-to-secure-votes-for-UN-role.aspx   Mr Rudd has made his first foreign policy concession in his bid to secure a temporary position on the U.N. Security Council. He has let the Europeans off the hook in regards to committing troops to combat zones in Afghanistan. Mr Rudd’s task at the NATO meeting in Bucharest was to gain a commitment for an extra 10,000 troops, and to see these troops posted to southern Afghanistan where the dangerous fighting is taking place, and where Australian troop are taking on the Taliban. However, at the NATO meeting Mr Rudd was sold a pup by the European members of NATO. A little over a thousand troops were committed by Europe, and on the condition that they not be posted to the hot spots in the south. In particular, Mr Rudd came out of his meeting with the French President, Mr Sarkozy, warmly welcoming the commitment of French troops and advising that the French had agreed to support Australia’s bid for a temporary seat on the Security Council in 2013-14. Mr Rudd appeared as an apologist for the Europeans. He pulled his punches. Mr Rudd should have been insisting that European troops numbers be vastly increased, and that the conditions which prevent their troops being placed in fighting zones (apart from the Danes and Dutch who are in the fighting zones) be removed. The NATO countries represent a total military strength of around 2 million troops yet have committed a little over 40,000 troop to Afghanistan. This inadequate situation is made all the more problematic by the absurd condition placed on over half the troops by European countries that they not be positioned where they might be fighting the Taliban. What kind of message is this sending to the Taliban? Either you are fighting a war or you are not. Furthermore, the NATO meeting concluded without agreement on a properly coordinated and appropriate plan of action. The Bucharest NATO meeting has been a major setback for Australia. Mr Rudd and our Defence Minister, Mr Fitzgibbon, need to be honest with the Australian people in terms of their assessment of the NATO meeting and NATO’s commitment to Afghanistan. And, rather than appearing as an apologist for the Europeans in hopes of securing support for a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council, Mr Rudd needs to insist on a greater European troop commitment, and for these troops to be committed to combat zones rather than peacekeeping roles. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:774 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/773/Tests-for-Mr-Rudd-in-London.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=773 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=773&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/773/Tests-for-Mr-Rudd-in-London.aspx   Unfortunately, Mr Rudd will arrive in London having failed to gain a commitment for the extra NATO troops to be posted in southern Afghanistan to assist with the fighting in the most dangerous area, where the Australian forces happen to be. This is unfinished business for Mr Rudd. The 1,000 extra troops from France that will be placed in the east of Afghanistan are an important factor for the Canadians commitment to Afghanistan, but it does not result in the heavy lifting in the real hot spots being shared with new NATO troops, and is a far cry short of the estimated 10,000 additional troops that were being sought. Now Mr Rudd heads to London. Mr Rudd needs to gain a firm public commitment from the British Prime Minister, Mr Brown, that he will lobby other European nations in support of Australia’s bid for a UN Security Council seat. The Prime Minister also needs to use the fact that the meeting will be between two Labor leaders to force the British Government to finally agree to index the pensions of British pensioners living in Australia. Currently when British pensioners come to Australia their pension is frozen at whatever the rate is when they arrive. This can leave some pensioners thousands of dollars worse off over many years and in many cases the pensions are “topped-up” by the Australian Government. For many years the Howard Government tried unsuccessfully to gain a commitment from the British Government to index these pensions. This is now a challenge for Mr Rudd to pick up. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:773 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/771/Travel-advice-for-Syria-downgraded-why.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=771 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=771&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/771/Travel-advice-for-Syria-downgraded-why.aspx   The Federal Government needs to explain why it has decreased the level of advice for Australian tourists travelling to Syria from ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ to ‘High degree of caution’ at the same time as other countries are issuing new warnings and Syria itself has recently increased security levels, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “I am surprised that the level of travel advice for Syria has been downgraded particularly as the advice still contains phrases such as ‘high threat of terrorist attack and unpredictable security environment in the region’ and ‘the unpredictable security situation’. “This comes after the recent Arab League Summit when Syria themselves placed government buildings, busy avenues, streets, hotels and public places in Damascus under heavy surveillance by police and security agents and restricted air traffic at the Damascus international airport. “I also note that Israel has recently warned their citizens to be ‘more alert’ and has classed Syria as ‘high risk’. The US State Department is also advising US citizens to ‘thoroughly consider the risks before travel to Syria’. This level of advice has been constant for more than six months. “The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith, needs to assure travellers that he believes the situation in Syria has improved enough for travel warnings to be downgraded”, Mr Robb said. The relevant internet site is: http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Syria Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:771 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/772/Mr-Rudd-must-deliver-real-outcomes-to-justify-his-Bucharest-stopover.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=772 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=772&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/772/Mr-Rudd-must-deliver-real-outcomes-to-justify-his-Bucharest-stopover.aspx   If Mr Rudd is going to spend nearly three weeks out of Australia at a critical time in the formation of this year’s May Budget, he needs to do more than “meet and greet” world leaders and celebrities. The test of these overseas trips by a Prime Minister is what is achieved in terms of substance for the Australian people. This trip needs to be outcome orientated and Mr Rudd needs to obtain real outcomes. Mr Rudd’s arrival in Bucharest comes after he has left Brussels having achieved nothing for Australian farmers on trade or any advancement of the Doha discussions. The Federal Coalition has long supported an increase in troop numbers by NATO countries to assist the outstanding work of Australian soldiers in southern Afghanistan. As observed by the Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, a NATO increase in troop numbers is already in the pipeline and would be delivered with or without Mr Rudd. Given that an increase in NATO troop numbers is already in the pipeline, the test for Mr Rudd is to get a commitment from NATO countries that these increase troops numbers will be placed where the real danger is in southern Afghanistan, alongside Australian soldiers. This approach would provide more security for Australians and more capacity to deal with the major centre of Taliban activity. Mr Rudd also needs to explain why he says he wants further involvement with NATO yet he is cutting a DFAT position from Brussels that was specifically created by the Coalition Government to liaise with NATO headquarters. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:772 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/769/Mr-Rudds-contact-with-Japan-long-overdue.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=769 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=769&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/769/Mr-Rudds-contact-with-Japan-long-overdue.aspx   114 days ago the Federal Opposition first urged Prime Minister Rudd to pick up the phone to his Japanese counterpart, Mr Fukuda. On at least 20 occasions since, the Opposition has warned the Prime Minister that ignoring Japan would undermine that relationship. Mr Rudd in his long overdue decision to meet face-to-face with the Prime Minister of Japan – our closest friend in Asia – must see him turning a new page in providing a balanced approach to the four major powers in the region; Japan, Indonesia, India and China. Australia’s best interests are served by genuine acknowledgement of the value of each relationship to Australia. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:769 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/766/Opposition-support-for-UN-Security-Council-seat-not-guaranteed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=766 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=766&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/766/Opposition-support-for-UN-Security-Council-seat-not-guaranteed.aspx   The Federal Opposition will not guarantee support a bid by Australia to gain a seat on the United Nations (U.N) Security Council. The Government must provide satisfactory assurances and answers on a range of issues critical to Australia, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “On any hard-nosed assessment it appears that if Australia is to secure the sufficient votes to gain a two-year temporary seat on the Security Council in 2013-14, Australia would have to seriously reposition on some major foreign policy matters. “Support of the nations within the Arab Gulf Co-operation Council would be necessary and would require Australia to significantly weaken its support for Israel. “To gain the critical support of many African countries, Australia would have to soften its position on human rights abuses; particularly in Zimbabwe. “Mr Rudd must answer the question – where does he plan to get the necessary votes if he doesn’t intend to make these and other critical foreign policy compromises to gain majority support of the 192 nations within the U.N.? “Any successful bid for a U.N. Security Council spot will also lead to a crisis in DFAT given the huge focus and resource requirements; particularly at a time when the Rudd Government is slashing $58 million from DFAT staff positions in major diplomatic posts. “Reductions in funding and personnel dedicated to negotiating the Free Trade Agreements with China and Japan, are also likely. “Many other questions require an honest answer; including – 1) Is there any real prospect of reform to the choking bureaucracy of the U.N. which has seen it fail to adequately respond to many crises; such as Rwanda? 2) What is the agenda and issues that Mr Rudd wants to take to the Security Council? 3) How was the cost of $40 million to lobby other countries for this spot and the likelihood of attaining a position arrived at and assessed? Is there any assurance that the cost won’t seriously blow out? 4) Is this a genuine bid, or is it simply another expensive “symbol” of activity on the part of Mr Rudd, without any substance? 5) What real benefit will Australia derive from the temporary membership of the U.N. Security Council, particularly given the cost of lobbying, the important compromises that would need to be made to foreign policy, the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council and the irrelevance experienced by many other temporary members? “Like many other “symbolic” gestures by the Rudd Government this proposal for a temporary U.N. Security Council seat appears half baked.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:766 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/899/Snubbing-India-not-the-best-way-to-engage-with-Asia--The-Australian.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=899 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=899&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/899/Snubbing-India-not-the-best-way-to-engage-with-Asia--The-Australian.aspx In August 2007 the Howard Government agreed to export uranium to India for the sole purpose of peaceful and clean power generation. It marked a huge stride for Australia in forging an enduring strategic partnership with India. The subsequent Rudd Government decision to overturn this agreement is wrong and unsustainable. This decision is also confused and inconsistent given that “enhancing relations with Asia” is supposed to be one of the three pillars of Mr Rudd’s foreign policy. The decision, and the amateur way in which the decision was communicated to the Indian Government, has left a very bitter taste in Indian mouths. The original agreement for Australia to sell uranium to India backed the historic US – India nuclear deal which separates India’s nuclear energy program from its nuclear weapons program. And, just as the powerful strategic partnership India is forging with the United States has as its cornerstone this agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation, so too is nuclear cooperation a primary factor in India’s prospective full engagement with Australia. Australia must engage because India has truly begun to look east with constructive and responsible eyes. India is the emerging economic powerhouse of South Asia. The time for Australia to make a major political investment in India is now. Already India is Australia’s fourth largest export market, with our coal exports growing 300 per cent in six years. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in addressing the reality of India’s energy needs. As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Two-thirds of India’s emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. If the uranium deal succeeds, and the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. The Rudd Government’s position will also set back the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The nuclear protocols agreed to would see 65 per cent of all nuclear reactors in India coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Global non-proliferation would be greatly strengthened by including India, a country which has an exemplary record on non-proliferation. Furthermore, the Rudd Government’s position is unsustainable from the point of view of the damage done to wider bilateral interests, such as the potential free trade agreement. The US-India nuclear agreement accepts the reality of India as a weapons state, but allows India’s peaceful nuclear energy program to gain access to uranium, nuclear technology and nuclear reactors. The agreement would be a break with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which disallows sales of uranium to countries with nuclear weapons, except the nuclear weapons nations of the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. As India has nuclear weapons it cannot join the NPT, despite never proliferating nuclear technology to any nation. This contrasts with China which has sold such technology to North Korea and Pakistan in the past. It is a commonsense accommodation of India’s circumstances and standing in the world. It is remarkable that one of Labor’s first acts as a government was to summon the Indian nuclear envoy and advise him that, for ‘party political’ reasons, Australia would not be selling uranium to India. The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India’s feelings were trampled on. It is putting an irrational and weak sop to the hard left of the Labor Party ahead of the national interest. Again it goes to poor judgement. If Labor is committed to all it has said about global warming, then refusing to sell uranium to India, while supporting new uranium sales to China and Russia, is totally irrational and hypocritical. This old thinking of Australia’s Labor Government is starkly revealed when compared against the agreement last week of Britain and France to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and export the technology around the world in an effort to combat climate change. To add to the confusion the Rudd Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, while at the same time Mr Rudd has said he has not yet made up his mind on whether to veto sales by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This makes no sense. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. The bottom line on all this is that reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India will do substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. In this regard Labor is standing against a critical new engagement in Asia. This issue can make Australia a strategically important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is a big issue. Labor’s position is very bad policy, and disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed.   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:899 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/764/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=764 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=764&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/764/Interview-with-Marius-Benson--ABC-News-Radio.aspx   GLEN BARTHOLOMEW: Mr Rudd is under fire from the Opposition at home over his travels with continued claims that Japan has been insulted by being excluded from his itinerary. For more on that we are joined by the Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesman Andrew Robb and he is speaking with Marius Benson. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, I want to ask you about Japan and Kevin Rudd’s decision not to travel to Japan on this trip. But, first I wanted to ask you about the UN security bid by Kevin Rudd. He say’s Australia will bid for a place on the UN Security Council in 2012 for the year 2013 -14. Do you back that proposal? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, it’s quite a legitimate ambition to try and gain a seat on the Security Council. Of course, back in 1996-97 the Howard government made a similar attempt to gain a seat on the security council and it does require maintaining very strong relations with many parts of the world. And, as I say, Mr Rudd’s made a fairly bad start on that in some respects. MARIUS BENSON: Okay. Let me ask you about that criticism you have of Kevin Rudd. You raised it in Parliament two weeks ago that this trip doesn’t include Japan. He’s made the point, Mr Rudd has made the point, that he will be visiting Japan twice later this year. ANDREW ROBB: Yeah, but the point is, it’s Japan is our strongest friend in Asia, long standing substantial friend, our biggest export market by a country mile. One of the first things that the Rudd government did was send a gun boat after the whaling ships of Japan and we said at the time, it’s legitimate for Australia to take these actions, but they are a friend. Pick up the phone, pick up the phone to the Prime Minister Fukuda and talk, communicate. Now, that has not happened in four months. That has not happened and not only that, but in a 17 day trip, Mr Rudd has found no time to call in and meet with his Japanese counterpart and maintain this very, very important relationship of Australia’s. MARIUS BENSON: Mr Rudd is spending four days in China on this trip. Do you think he is being demonstrating, perhaps too pro-Chinese view of the world? ANDREW ROBB: Well, that’s the way it’s being interpreted. I mean, even last Wednesday when he was making a speech to explain the trip I was in the audience and there was no mention of Japan. There was a lot of discussion of the importance of meeting with key financial centres important to Australia. No mention of Japan no mention of the relationship, and I do know that the Japanese who were in the audience, afterwards were really beside themselves at trying to understand what was going on in terms of the Rudd government’s attitude towards Japan and just could not understand it. And, it felt very miffed about the way in which the way things are unfolding. MARIUS BENSON: When you were questioning Mr Rudd about why he wasn’t going to Japan, you were also quizzing him in Parliament about payments that were made to him as Shadow Minister by a Chinese company, the Australia China Technology Company and an individual in it, Ian Tang. You saw that, do you see his decision to spend so much time in China is reflecting the impact of private lobbyists? ANDREW ROBB: Well, certainly I think the Japanese have got this big question mark there and of course, it’s great sensitivity, if they want to see balance in their relationship in the region and that is very, very important. The other issue that we were seeking to raise with that episode of nearly half a million dollars being accepted by members of the Labor Party from an unknown Chinese company was a question of judgement. MARIUS BENSON: The Government made the point at the time, that the Opposition, The Nationals in fact, took a $150,000 from the same Chinese source? ANDREW ROBB: But the point is, Mr Rudd and his colleagues took something close to a quarter of a million dollars worth of travel, accommodation and entertainment over a period of a couple of two or three years. Now, this is from at the time the alternative government and it’s not a question of the sponsorship, it’s a question of the quantum and the appropriateness of taking so much money... MARIUS BENSON: Mr Robb, as the Shadow Minister yourself, are you accepting private sponsorship for travel? ANDREW ROBB: I have not as yet. Though, I was, I did go to the United States with the Australian US dialogue in January and I have at no stage said that it is inappropriate. You have to make use common sense though, and some judgement. You have to look at the purpose of the trip, where the money is coming from and the quantum, how much you take from individual companies and so, you know, common sense and judgement should dictate these things. What our point has been, is that there’s been such an excessive amount, nearly half a million dollars from an unknown Chinese company over a period of three or four years this is a serious error of judgement. MARIUS BENSON: Andrew Robb, thank you very much. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks very much Marius.   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:764 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/765/Address-to-the-Sydney-Insitute--Uranium-Sales-to-India-A-Strategic-Imperative.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=765 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=765&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/765/Address-to-the-Sydney-Insitute--Uranium-Sales-to-India-A-Strategic-Imperative.aspx Address to the Sydney Insitute - Uranium Sales to India: A Strategic Imperative 31 March 2008 - The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. In August 2007 the Howard Government agreed to export uranium to India. The uranium was intended only for power generation and would not contribute to nuclear proliferation. The decision has since been overturned by the Rudd Government. The Rudd Government position is wrong and unsustainable. The decision also reflects confused and inconsistent policy priorities given that one of Mr Rudd’s supposed three pillars of his foreign policy is enhancing relations with Asia. Ultimately I expect that the Rudd Government will need to reverse this decision not to sell Australian yellowcake to India. The decision, and the amateur way in which the decision was communicated to the Indian Government, has left a very bitter taste in Indian mouths. From a climate perspective there is overwhelming merit in India, the world community and Australia, addressing the reality of India’s energy needs, given the very stringent conditions India is prepared to accept to enter the international nuclear market for peaceful energy purposes. The Rudd Government’s position will also set back the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The nuclear protocols agreed to last August would see 65 per cent of all nuclear reactors in India coming under the strict coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Global non-proliferation would be greatly strengthened by including India, a country which has an exemplary record on non-proliferation. Furthermore, the Rudd Government’s position is unsustainable from the point of view of wider bilateral interests, notably the potential free-trade agreement between our two countries. In August 2007 Australia and India agreed to undertake a joint feasibility study on the merits of a bilateral free-trade agreement between the two countries, with a view to seeing large-scale elimination of trade, investment and services barriers between our two economies. The economic, social and security implications of such an agreement are potentially of enormous benefit to our community. Australian opposition to uranium sales to India for energy purposes could severely compromise and undermine any worthwhile progress on a bilateral free-trade agreement. An Historical Perspective: From independence through until the end of the 20th Century, Australia-India relations could best be described as qualified indifference. The foreign policy position of non-alignment pioneered by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru saw us on opposite sides on many international issues through the Cold War period, from the Korean War, to India’s support for China in the UN, to the Vietnam War and to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. All of this, when combined with the state of the Indian economy, a 1980s and ‘90s Australian view of India through the narrow prism of the ‘India-Pakistan’ conflict and the nuclear tests of 1998, meant that relations between our two countries came to be characterised more by mutual disinterest or mutual testiness. Our shared commitment to cricket and democracy probably helped us weather significant differences which sprung from other commitments and other alignments over these decades. As well, the bond of the Commonwealth should not be underestimated in the role it played in carrying us through our differences. However, in this century so much has changed. In a few short years our relations have not only normalised, but reached the point of a potentially strong and enduring strategic partnership. And, just as the powerful strategic partnership India is forging with the United States has as its cornerstone the agreement for civilian nuclear cooperation, so too is this nuclear cooperation a primary factor in India’s prospective full engagement with Australia. For Mr Rudd not to see this is a serious error of judgement. This is particularly so at a time when Mr Rudd is seeking a rotating seat on the UN Security Council while denying India reliable clean energy, the very thing that will bolster India’s legitimate claim to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Australia must engage because India has truly begun to look east with constructive and responsible eyes. India is increasingly playing a vital role in the evolution of our region. It is the emerging economic powerhouse of South Asia. It is expected that India will pass China’s population as the worlds largest within 20 years, at around 1.5 billion people. The economic revolution masterminded by India’s current Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, when he was Finance Minister, heralds an economic awakening comparable to that prompted by Deng Xiaoping in China. Along with China, the rise of India in the years ahead look to be the major forces altering the global economy and world politics. The time for Australia to make a major political investment in India is now. The strategic imperative is overwhelming. In recent years important groundwork has been lain, beginning with the significant counter-terrorism cooperation with India following 9/11, the joint action over the Tsunami, the decision by the Howard Government to allow the export of Australian uranium for civilian nuclear energy, the active support for India’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the beginning of negotiations for a bilateral free-trade agreement, the involvement of Australia in quadrilateral talks involving the US, Japan and India, the joint naval exercise held in the Bay of Bengal in 2007 and the extraordinary growth in our trade. Already India is Australia’s fourth largest export market, with exports growing at year-on-year rates in excess of 30 per cent since 2000, faster than export growth to China. Mining and agriculture are obvious growth centres, but investment and services also hold huge potential for growth, with India already our second largest source of overseas students, and tourism expanding dramatically. All of this on top of the 250,000 strong Australian Indian community that contributes so vibrantly to the multicultural success of our nation, no less than our successful Chinese community. In terms of strategic initiatives of enormous moment to Australia since World War II, we should aim to be in a position in future years to look back and see comprehensive engagement with India in the 21st Century standing alongside our achievement of other great partnerships - the signing of ANZUS in 1951, the formalising of our involvement with Japan in the 1950s and our engagement with China in the 1990s and into this century. India’s energy needs: Rapid population and economic growth will see a rapid rise in India’s energy needs as it seeks to grow at close to 10% to lift its people out of poverty. As India grows it will rank third behind the US and China in terms of global energy usage. Power generation will account for much of the increase in primary energy demand, given surging electricity demand in industry and in residential and commercial buildings. Most of the new electricity generating capacity will be fuelled by coal. Among end-users, energy demand for transport sees the fastest rate of growth, as rising household incomes drive accelerating demand for motor vehicles. In the absence of strong alternative policy action, galloping energy demand will see major increases in imports of coal, oil and gas, and in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Over the next 25 years, for logistical and quality reasons, much of India’s coal needs will need to be met by imports. The trend is evidenced by the growth in Australia’s coal exports to India since 2000. Until 1990, Australia exported no coal to India. In 2000/2001 Australia exported just over $800 million worth of coal to India; last year our coal trade reached $2.5 billion, an extraordinary 300 per cent growth in six years. Again, over the next 25 year period primary energy demand in India is expected to double, with India overtaking Japan before 2025 to become the world’s third largest net importer of oil after the United States and China. India’s greenhouse gas emissions: All of this adds up to India becoming the world’s third largest emitter of carbon dioxide by 2015, after ranking fifth in 2005. Two-thirds of India’s emissions come from burning coal, mainly in power stations. Without a change in the method of base-load power generation, this share of emissions from coal fired power stations will increase through to 2030, and beyond. India will not sacrifice development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will only occur by employing less carbon-intensive energy – nuclear, gas or clean coal. This has been strongly emphasised by Prime Minister Singh who has said, “Nuclear energy offers a way out by providing clean energy for development. So I see enormous opportunities for members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and India with regard to supply of raw materials, technology and reactors”. The greenhouse impact of nuclear power generation is brought home by the fact that the export of Australian uranium ore concentrates in 2006-07 was sufficient to power 50 reactors, producing about 40 per cent more than Australia’s total electricity production. Countries using Australian uranium avoid carbon dioxide emissions roughly equivalent to our entire annual CO2 emissions from all sources. Around the world nuclear power today reduces global emissions by more than 2 billion tonnes a year. If the uranium deal succeeds, and the existing restrictions on the import of nuclear technology and uranium for peaceful power sources are removed, it is estimated that by 2050 as much as 35 per cent of India’s total energy needs could be met by clean nuclear power plants. Australia’s Uranium Exports Policy: Australia’s uranium export policy acknowledges the strategic significance which distinguishes uranium from other energy sources. Australian policy has consistently recognised that special arrangements need to be put in place to distinguish between the civil and military applications of nuclear energy. When adopted in 1977, Australia’s export policy was a more rigorous safeguards policy than that of any country supplying uranium to world markets. Today it is now very similar to that of the USA and Canada. Australia’s policy embodies fundamental tenets first outlined in 1977, and adjusted to reflect a number of developments in the intervening period. For example, the sale of uranium to a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not unprecedented. In 1981, the Fraser Government negotiated an agreement to sell uranium to France, with Australia exporting uranium to them throughout the ‘80s under the Hawke Government. However, France did not become a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until 1992. Australia has always required assurances that exported uranium and its derivatives cannot assist the development of nuclear weapons or be used in other military programs. It is only sold for exclusively peaceful purposes of power generation and related research and development. This is done by precisely accounting for amounts of Australia-Obligated Nuclear Material as it moves through the nuclear fuel cycle. It is exported under Australia’s network of bilateral safeguards agreements which ensures coverage by the International Atomic Energy Agency from the time it leaves Australian ownership, for the full life of the material. Nature of the Australia/India Uranium Agreement: The US-India nuclear deal, struck personally between Prime Minister Singh and President Bush, was concluded in principle last August after two years of negotiation. The deal separates India’s nuclear energy program from its nuclear weapons program. To be finalised, the agreement must pass the US Congress, get the International Atomic Energy Agency to meet a special protocol to oversight India’s peaceful nuclear power plants and receive agreement by the 45 member Nuclear Suppliers Group to sell uranium to India. Very importantly, the US/India deal will strengthen nuclear non-proliferation by making very significant progress in drawing India in under the safeguards and oversight of the International Atomic Energy Agency. In due course this may prompt progress with other non signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The agreement will put 65 per cent of India’s nuclear program, or 14 of its 22 nuclear reactors, under the stringent safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agreement would be a break with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which disallows sales of uranium to countries with nuclear weapons, except the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. As India has nuclear weapons it cannot join the NPT, despite never proliferating nuclear technology to any nation. Against this background the US-India agreement accepts the reality of India as a weapons state, but allows India’s peaceful nuclear energy program to gain access to uranium, nuclear technology and nuclear reactors. It is a commonsense accommodation of India’s circumstances, just as sensible accommodations have been made for China in various regional and global matters. The Howard Government agreed last August to sell uranium to India subject to the finalisation of the US-India deal, and the conclusion of a bilateral Australia-India safeguards agreement. Strategic Importance to Australia: It was proposed that Australia sell uranium to India according to the identical strict safeguards under which we sell uranium to China and Russia. In years gone by China has sold nuclear technology to Pakistan and North Korea; unlike India which has abided by the NPT obligations, even from the outside. In these circumstances, and provided the conditions agreed with India are fully met, it would be highly hypocritical to deny India this technology while China benefits from full nuclear access. Furthermore, if the US-India agreement is finalised, including approval by the International Atomic Energy Agency, then any Australian Government opposition would be a very serious matter, and invite long-term misunderstanding in our relationship with India. India and Australia are two great democracies sharing the common values and interests of democracies. We are partners in regionalism as members of the Commonwealth members of the East Asia Summit. This is a critical moment in seeking to cement an Australian/Indian strategic partnership – a relationship of great importance to Australia’s interests and Australia’s future. It is a strategic partnership that can be built around the challenge of energy in an energy hungry world, while simultaneously addressing two of the great challenges of our time – climate change and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. On greenhouse considerations alone this agreement is a ‘must do’. Opposing it forces India into increasing reliance on its substantial dirty coal reserves. However, other considerations are also compelling. There is strategic sense in seeing the largest democracy in the region taking a stronger role in the region, and in a way where it enjoys the respect and standing of other major regional powers. There is India’s position as our fourth biggest export market, in a burgeoning trade relationship, to be protected and nurtured. There is a growing bilateral security relationship to be fostered, especially involving cooperation in counter-terrorism and in maintaining stability in the Indian Ocean. And, critically, there is an opportunity to significantly advance the cause of non-proliferation by bringing 65 per cent of all India’s nuclear reactors under UN inspections, and under the protocols of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the same time, it creates a safer and more secure environment for these nuclear power stations. Labor Government Position: Given all these considerations, it is remarkable that one of Labor’s first acts as a government was to summon the Indian nuclear envoy, Shyam Saran, and advise him that, for ‘party political’ reasons, Australia would not be selling uranium to India. The manner, timing and substance of this communication was highly condescending, inept and wrong. The national interest was not considered. Climate change was ignored. Nuclear non-proliferation was sidelined. A China bias was implied. Constructive US policy towards Asia was opposed. India’s feelings were trampled on. And all in the interests of an irrational and weak sop to the hard left of the Labor Party. Mr Rudd is putting the internal machinations of the Labor Party ahead of the national interest. Again it goes to poor judgement. If Labor is committed to all it has said about global warming, then refusing to sell uranium to India, while supporting new uranium sales to China and Russia, is totally irrational and hypocritical. How can the Rudd Government claim moral leadership on the global stage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it ducks the first hard decision which would result in massive reductions in emissions. Furthermore, the decision comes at a time when the sale of our coal to India has grown 300 per cent in six years, with the growth in sales showing no sign of slowing. So much for consistency. This old thinking of Australia’s Labor Government is starkly revealed when compared against the agreement last week of Britain and France to construct a new generation of nuclear power stations and export the technology around the world in an effort to combat climate change. To add to the confusion the Rudd Government is saying to our Indian friends that we do not trust them with our uranium, while at the same time Mr Rudd has said he has not yet made up his mind on whether to veto sales by the 44 other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. This makes no sense. How can Australia refuse to sell our uranium to India, yet plausibly support the rest of the world supplying uranium. Either way, Australia will be adding insult to injury. How can the Rudd Government claim that Australia’s relationship with India is a high Government priority when it snubs this direct and heartfelt request from the highly respected Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy. It is stupidity. India’s Reaction: India is understood to be deeply offended by the Rudd Government decisions, and the manner in which it was conveyed. Influential foreign affairs commentators from India have denounced the decision in the strongest terms, labelling the scrapping of the pledge to sell uranium as “retrograde ideology, pathetic hypocrisy, misplaced non-proliferation zealotry” and accusing our Prime Minister of parroting “the same lame excuse, as if he has not read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text”. The observation has been pointedly made that far from the NPT forbidding civil exports to a non-signatory, the treaty indeed encourages the peaceful use of nuclear technology among all states. Further comments claim that “Prime Minister Rudd has no qualms about selling uranium to China but will not export to India”. As well, the simultaneous holding of a strong position on greenhouse gases, and a disposition against selling uranium to an energy starved India, is seen in India as showing “a lack of logic”. Conclusion: The bottom line on all this is that reversing Australia’s commitment to sell uranium to India will do substantial damage to the Australia-India relationship. It makes absolutely no sense to sell uranium to China and Russia, and not to India. It makes absolutely no sense to claim climate change to be the great moral challenge of our time and then block the adoption of nuclear technology which is greenhouse gas free, and which already provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity needs. The US-India nuclear agreement is good for India, good for Australia, good for the region, good for climate change and good for nuclear non-proliferation. In this regard Labor is standing against a critical new engagement in Asia. This issue can make Australia a strategically important partner to India. It is the thing India really wants from us. It is a big issue. Labor’s position is very bad policy, and disastrous politics. It is a position that is unsustainable. It can and must be reversed. End   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:765 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/770/Interview-with-Samantha-Hawley--ABC-AM-Programme.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=770 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=770&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/770/Interview-with-Samantha-Hawley--ABC-AM-Programme.aspx   PRESENTER: The first weekend of the Prime Minister’s world tour has been overshadowed by Kevin Rudd’s decision not to travel to Japan on his 17 day trip. At a press conference in New York yesterday a Japanese journalist took Mr Rudd to task over his failure to telephone the Japanese Prime Minister and explain why he’ll be visiting Japan [sic] but not Tokyo. Kevin Rudd says he’ll be travelling to Japan on two separate occasions later in the year. But the federal Opposition says the diplomatic damage has already been done. The Prime Minister’s decision is unforgivable. The Opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb spoke to Samantha Hawley in Canberra ANDREW ROBB: I think the Japanese are beside themselves in many respects and really concerned about what it all means. We’ve been suggesting to Mr Rudd since I think December, when he sent s gun boat after the whaling ships of, the whaling boats of Japan, that he at least pick up the phone to the Japanese Prime Minister. The snubbing of Japan is very bad diplomacy indeed. SAMANTHA HAWLEY: So you think it is a direct snubbing by the Government? ANDREW ROBB: Well that’s how it’s being perceived, I mean even the speech the other night, on Wednesday night before Mr Rudd left. It really made no reference to Japan and in fact he spoke endlessly about the importance of talking to the significant financial centres and those countries that impact on Australia. And I know the Japanese in the audience were deeply disturbed afterwards by the lack of any reference. This is just a classic case of very bad judgement to have ignored our best friend in Asia for the first four months and especially when there’s a 17 day overseas trip. He’s flying over Japan, he’s spending four days in the neighbouring country. To not be able to send one hour in Japan in this trip is just unforgivable. PRESENTER: The federal opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb speaking to Samantha Hawley in Canberra. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, was not available for an interview with AM. End. Andrew Robb MP Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:770 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/768/Interview-with-Laurie-Oakes--Channel-Nine-Sunday-program.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=768 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=768&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/768/Interview-with-Laurie-Oakes--Channel-Nine-Sunday-program.aspx   ELLEN FANNING: The shadow minister for Foreign Affairs Andrew Robb will be Laurie Oakes guest this Sunday. Amongst other things he will be commenting on Kevin Rudd's overseas trip, Australia's relationship with China and our reaction to events in Tibet. LAURIE OAKES: Thanks, Ellen. Mr Robb, welcome to the program. ANDREW ROBB: Yes, thanks, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: President Bush says that Kevin Rudd is the new man of steel. How does that make you and your party feel? ANDREW ROBB: Well, Laurie, I think that they're our strongest ally in the US, and a lot of that is owed - was taken to a new level I think in the last 10 or 12 years and I do think that given the strength and depth of our relationship with the United States that Australians would have been disappointed if there had been anything less than the warm response that President Bush has given to Mr Rudd. LAURIE OAKES: So you agree that Mr Rudd's had a pretty successful visit to Washington? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think, as I say, I think the depth of the relationship is such that on both sides, it is critical that we maintain and grow that relationship even further, and it's important that Mr Rudd has a successful Washington trip. LAURIE OAKES: But before the election, the Coalition, of course, were saying that Labor's policy of pulling troops out of Iraq would threaten the US relationship. Look pretty silly now, don't you? ANDREW ROBB: No, I don't think that's true at all, Laurie. I mean, we said that, you know, it was a point of difference and points of difference are issues with any relationship, and, you know, we were pointing that out. I do think, though, that you know, the US values the relationship so strongly that they have in fact accepted the vote here at the last election and the right of the Australian Government, whatever Australian government is in power, to take the actions that they deem appropriate. So, you know, I think it's just a reflection what we're seeing in the United States of a very strong and deep relationship and, you know, a lot of that is owed to John Howard. He took it to other levels. LAURIE OAKES: So, Labor's Iraq policy did not put strains on the relationship? ANDREW ROBB: Well, it would - look, it's a point of difference and I see ... LAURIE OAKES: Not quite the same thing, though, is it? ANDREW ROBB: No. Well, I see in the last AUSMIN talks in Australia here between the senior intelligence and military people and Defence people, between our two countries that the Americans were saying really that because of the relationship, Iraq really was taken off the table in those discussions. Now, that just reflects, I think, the sensitivity of the United States to maintaining the relationship, and trying to ensure that, you know, that they make a good start with the new government. That's very important. It's very important to Australians. LAURIE OAKES: But according to George W. Bush, Labor's troop withdrawal decision is consistent with US policy. He says the US is pulling troops out, too, and he views Australia's decision as a return on success. ANDREW ROBB: But, Laurie, from the outset the intent of all those involved, all of the Coalition of the Willing was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and that happened, and then to assist the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people to, you know, get control of their own affairs. And to help them in that endeavour. And then to leave. That was the purpose of it. And all along we have said that we would - we would assist that objective, and, of course, you know, with Mr Rudd - there is still a lot of smoke and mirrors about our continuing engagement in Iraq. We are taking out 550 combat troops, but there still remain nearly 1,000 or around 1,000 Australian Defence personnel in and around Iraq, and there is no exit strategy for those. They're there to ensure that the Iraqi Government and the people can get control of their own situation and ... LAURIE OAKES: That ..that was always Labor's policy. It was always labour's policy, the Coalition knew that was Labor's policy and yet Brendan Nelson, among others, was saying that Labor's policy would put significant strains on the relationship. It doesn't seem to have done that at all. ANDREW ROBB: Well, what I'm saying to you, Laurie, is I think a lot of Australians are really unaware of the continuing commitment of the 1,000. I know the Americans are in a position to say to others in the Coalition of the Willing that Australia, like the UK, have taken out a proportion, but a smaller proportion of the total commitment of troops and Defence personnel that were in Iraq and still are in Iraq, and so there is, I think, on the American side, a gratitude that we are staying the distance with the thousand Defence personnel that still are there, and who are there with a very important job of helping the Iraqi people and the government to gain control of the situation there and, you know, see some enduring stability in the country and some growth, and some quality of life for all Iraqis. LAURIE OAKES: Do you think that the phased withdrawal of those combat troops will endanger the lives of Australian soldiers? ANDREW ROBB: Um, no, I think it has to be handled effectively, and this is something that needs to be monitored at all times. I mean, we had felt, and we still feel, that the role of the combat troops would change during this year, and that there should be a change from a combat role to a training role again to help the Iraqis look after their own affairs, so that we could all exit there as quickly as possible. So, you know, I think that we're in good hands with our senior people in our defence forces in the management of all of that. LAURIE OAKES: But you said there that you do not believe it would endanger the lives of Australian soldiers. Your leader, when he was Defence Minister a year ago said, you would be endangering the lives of our soldiers. ANDREW ROBB: No I said Laurie.. LAURIE OAKES: There was a whole lot of alarmist nonsense was talked by the Coalition then, wasn't it? ANDREW ROBB: No, Laurie, we had during the course of that campaign to articulate the differences in views, and we had a legitimate and ongoing difference of view about the role. But even John Howard was saying, John Howard was saying during the campaign, that he expected during the course of this year, that the combat role of our troops would change progressively to a training role, and that was recognition of the fact that progress was being made in Iraq and that, you know, ultimately ... LAURIE OAKES: But that's a different issue. ANDREW ROBB: ..would withdraw of all troops. LAURIE OAKES: The point is that a year ago your leader was saying something which you now say is rubbish. ANDREW ROBB: No, I didn't say it was rubbish at all, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: When I asked would it endanger Australian troops, you said no, but I just read you Brendan Nelson's quote saying it would. ANDREW ROBB: I said it would be - these things need to be handled in an effective and with good judgment, Laurie. That was the point I was making, as we withdraw those troops, in all of these sorts of situations where you've got basically a war zone, then the movement of troops, the withdrawal of troops - it does create situations where you could have problems, but they need to be handled effectively. Now, we have got - we have got senior Defence personnel, very experienced people, and, you know, the expectation is that they will be able to handle this so that our troops - the risk is minimised, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: OK. Why are you so critical of the length of Kevin Rudd's trip. Five countries in 17 days with a packed program doesn't seem like a holiday. ANDREW ROBB: Well, Laurie, look, I'd be - I'd be the last as Foreign Affairs Shadow Minister to suggest that our Prime Minister should not travel overseas, but 17 days is, without a doubt, an indulgence, and Mr Rudd knows it. Really, a lot of this trip could be handled and managed in a week. The bottom line is, Laurie, it's all about priorities and judgment, and Mr Rudd should be back in Australia, I think, nailing this Budget, making sure that this Budget does its job, and you know, in many respects, the strength of our respects and our influence, which has grown, I think, internationally over the last decade - a lot of it is owed to the fact that we have performed as a country, our economy has been exceptional. We have outperformed the rest of the Western world consistently, despite a lot of things being thrown at us. If our economy is a cot case, no-one will listen to us. No amount of Mr Rudd's meddle power, creative activism, whatever that means will be worth a crumpet, if our economy does not maintain its strength, if we don't perform as a country. Now, Mr Rudd's objective - you can't spend weeks bemoaning the fact he's got a tough Budget to frame, and then disappear for three weeks, on a trip which is only exceeded by Gough Whitlam, I think, was the last Prime Minister to go on a trip of this length. LAURIE OAKES: Well I think John Howard did a trip that was 17 days long, as I recall. ANDREW ROBB: Well, it's only exceeded by Gough Whitlam and ... LAURIE OAKES: Can I ask you this, though: What about Mr Rudd's argument that the global financial crisis makes it necessary for him to meet economic decision-makers in the US, Europe and China, top protect our economy. ANDREW ROBB: Well, Mr. Rudd's re-inventing the purpose of the trip in a space of three weeks. If you go back three weeks when he issued a release, a detailed release about the purpose of the trip, the whole sub-prime mortgage issue was not mentioned. Now last Wednesday night the whole speech was predicated pretty much on the importance and the dynamics of what's happening overseas and I mean, he did this - and I was at that speech, and you could tell from his body language that he felt that he was going for too long, that he had other priorities here, and he had to find a reason, he had to try and convince the Australian population that there was a greater purpose to his trip other than meeting and greeting some world leaders, and, you know, the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister should be back here, helping to frame a budget. When Bob Hawke came to office, he had five years experience on the Reserve Bank board and years of experience with economics. When John Howard came to office as Prime Minister, he had been a former Treasurer. We've now got at the helm, you know, a former diplomat and bureaucrat and Wayne Swan who's had no experience. They need to get hold of this Budget. It is a priority both from a Foreign Affairs point of view, to maintain our standing in the world, but more importantly to look after the quality of life and the welfare of Australian people. LAURIE OAKES: Well, this trip seems to have offended the Japanese because they weren't included and Beijing is. What should Mr Rudd be doing to ease tensions with Japan, I suppose, and what should he do when he gets to China? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think certainly as far as China is concerned, as far as Tibet goes, there should be consistency and balance here. Mr Rudd needs to be as tough with the Chinese over Tibet, over human rights in Tibet, as he has been with the Japanese over whale rights. You know, he's read the riot Act with the Japanese; he's snubbed them on this trip. He has not bothered to call in and meet with the Japanese Prime Minister. My understanding is he's never even picked up the phone to Mr Fukuda, despite the sort of difficult issues that we've had since they came to office. He should be treating both those great allies of ours with the same consistency and balance, and I do think that, you know, the least is try and call in on Mr Fukuda and maintain the relationship with what is our strongest friend in Asia. LAURIE OAKES: So even though you say the trip is too long, you want him to go somewhere else and make it longer? ANDREW ROBB: No, no, Laurie he's four days in China, he's at NATO. He's got a long stretch in the US. This whole trip could have been done within a week, including the Japanese. If he is going to go to China, if he's going to go to the US, if he's going to go to NATO, at the very least he should have scheduled into this trip, at the expense of other elements of the trip, a short visit with the Japanese. This is a really important relationship. Look, the point is, Laurie, we must not be seen as, you know, an opportunistic country that grabs the next greatest thing going. We've got to be loyal to friends. You can't do - you can't build other relationships at the expense of countries that have been such a stalwart and such a strong ally for so many decades. LAURIE OAKES: Mr Robb, we're out of time, we thank you. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks, Laurie. Back to you, Ellen. End.   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:768 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/767/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly--ABC-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=767 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=767&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/767/Interview-with-Fran-Kelly--ABC-Radio-National-Breakfast.aspx   FRAN KELLY: Sponsorship in Opposition, maybe you’re surprised to find out that those in Opposition accept paid overseas trips by the private sector, it’s not uncommon apparently. And the trips taken by Kevin Rudd when he was Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and paid for by a Beijing based company have been the focus of repeated questions in Parliament by the Coalition’s Foreign Affairs spokesman, Andrew Robb. Andrew Robb joins us now in our Parliament House studio. Andrew Robb, Good Morning. ANDREW ROBB: Good Morning, Fran. FRAN KELLY: Now, all week you have been questioning the Government’s objectivity because Kevin Rudd and some other Labor politicians in the past in Opposition accepted sponsored overseas trips. What is the problem with this? ANDREW ROBB: Well, It’s not just a question of sponsored overseas trips, if commonsense and judgment is exercised it can be quite appropriate. This issue first and foremost goes to judgement in our view, such is the quantum of, you know, money and support that Mr Rudd and a whole host of his senior colleagues and the Labor Party have accepted from a foreign company. I think we have seen a grave error of judgement and we have got a situation where they have allowed the perception to form that they have been comprehensively duchessed by a foreign company to the tune of over half a million dollars. Now, that’s the real issue, whether it goes any further we don’t know because they haven’t answered any questions this week. FRAN KELLY: Well, hang on, it’s not that the Labor Party has allowed the perception to form, it’s the Opposition that’s pushed this perception. You’ve in fact raised all the number of trips been taken. Have you found anything inappropriate having taken place in any of those trips? ANDREW ROBB: Our job is to keep this government accountable and to probe matters of public record which it is there these trips. We were just aghast at the extent to which one company which has their Australian business been run out of a suburban home in Sydney, so they are of no consequence in this country. Were not sure what the nature of their business is in China, but, be that as it may, we’ve got Mr Rudd, we’ve got the Treasurer, we’ve got the Minister for Agriculture and others who have taken multiple trips, with the support of this company to China. It is a very legitimate line of questioning for us to probe. We would like to know why they did that? Why so comprehensively? And understand the motive behind this, because it is I think at the very least a grave error of judgement and in the end good government is about good judgement. FRAN KELLY: Okay. Well, as you say it’s a legitimate line of questioning for an Opposition. I agree with that. It also appears to be a legitimate practice under the rules of the parliament and as the government has pointed out, all these trips were appropriately declared under rules of the parliament. Is there a problem with the rules? ANDREW ROBB: Look, I think the rules are fine if common sense and judgement is exercised. FRAN KELLY: Yes, but that’s completely subjective isn’t it? ANDREW ROBB: Well, always. But that’s what judgement is. Judgement is a subjective element and it is a key, especially for a Prime Minister of a country. I think the most important characteristic of a Prime Minister is judgement. We saw last year the Brian Burke affair. We saw the Scores nightclub affair, we saw the whole episode with the dawn service. These are issues of judgement and it is our responsibility as an Opposition to probe questions of judgement in the Prime Minister and the government because they are running our country and you have got a situation this morning where a prominent Japanese commentator is saying that the Japanese were appalled and they looked Mr Rudd’s agenda. These are judgement issues; judgment issues very important to the country. FRAN KELLY: I will come to that issue in a moment. But to stick with this one. Kevin Rudd was not Prime Minister when he judged that he should take these trips, he was Shadow Foreign Minister. He needed support to travel overseas in that case because there is no public funding for this, fair enough. Presumably you will be in a position to make similar decisions if you want to make overseas trips as Shadow Foreign Minister? ANDREW ROBB: Exactly. FRAN KELLY: How will you make that judgement and is there a cut off? You’ll say ‘I’ll only take two trips from one company or one trip’? ANDREW ROBB: Look, I will be in that position and I will seek to exercise common sense and judgement what the company is, what its connection to Australia is. Bear in mind, this company we are talking about, is a foreign company and it’s now one of the biggest donors to the Labor Party. They have no interest of any consequence in Australia and we’re not certain of the nature of their business in China and yet they are now one of Labor Party’s largest donors in this country. Now, we just need to understand this relationship. That is a very legitimate line of probing that we should undertake because it does go to judgement in this government. FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb, while we have been having this conversation Kevin Rudd has been speaking about this matter on AM. Here a bit of him defending his actions as Foreign Minister in this interview with Chris Uhlmann.. KEVIN RUDD (archive tape): Certainly the invitation would have come from that company, but, as I said, we confirmed also prior to attending, that this would be supported by the Australian embassy and by the Australian Trade Commission. CHRIS UHLMANN:(archive tape): Did you feel indebted to him because he was paying for so much travel for you? KEVIN RUDD (archive tape): Not at all. If there was a project which was designed to in part promote the Australia-China commercial relationship then together with requests you receive from the business community at home and abroad, you attend those things. Also, having taken the added precaution of confirming that the then Australian Government’s official representatives, through the embassy, and through the Australian Trade Commission would be present, as they were. FRAN KELLY: So, that’s Kevin Rudd on AM just a moment ago. Andrew Robb, I mean, there’s Kevin Rudd laying out his case; One of these trips that’s received some attention in the newspaper today was launching a project which is a project promoting Australian-China business relationships. It was endorsed by our embassy in China, our Trade Commission there. All above board? ANDREW ROBB: Fran look, we haven’t had answers to most of our questions we don’t know, I mean, we are not making any accusations, we’re just asking. And we’ve asked Tony Burke, who went five times to China, five times, thirty one day’s in the last twenty one months. We asked him ‘what did you do there’. The legitimate question what did you do. He listed three meetings out of thirty one days in China. Now, they haven’t answered the question, we do not know, we do not know the substance of what happened there. We are not making any accusations, but we have a right to know, the public has a right to know, what meetings they attended, why they attended them, how it related to their important business as Opposition spokesmen at the time, and how it would relate to them if they, as they have done, have achieved government. FRAN KELLY: Okay. When it comes to your turn and because as you say, I mean, I’m assuming that you will accept some private funding, privately funded trips as Foreign Minister so you can travel. Will you commit now to giving that kind of detail to the parliament on return, and, should that at least be inserted in the parliamentary rules. Not just a declaration of the funding but a run down of what our Shadow Minister’s are doing when they are running around the world. ANDREW ROBB: I think that’s a very legitimate expectation. FRAN KELLY: Alright. You’ll make that commitment now? ANDREW ROBB: I do. I think if you go overseas sponsored by a company as I say there’s not anything necessarily untoward about that. It’s the size and the nature and the secrecy and all the rest and the fact that the company appears to have very little if any relationship to Australia that has lead to this minor question the fact that they are the biggest donors for the Labor Party. All of those things that needs clarification and I do think it’s a legitimate expectation if someone in my position does go overseas sponsored by a company, a private interest, that’s you know, the program should be a matter of public record. FRAN KELLY: Would it be even more legitimate if our politicians, Opposition politicians, travel overseas if we want them to do that and I’d suggest we do want our Shadow Foreign Minister’s in particular doing that to some extent, that we shouldn’t have some kind of public fund for that? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I understand that the Prime Minister has hinted at that in the last couple days and I think that makes a lot of sense. FRAN KELLY: Do you think that’s a good idea? ANDREW ROBB: I think it would avoid these sorts instances. FRAN KELLY: Okay. Just before we leave you this morning, the whole issue of Japan. You’ve brought it up, has been some kind of rumblings that there’s concern in Japan that the Prime Minister is not visiting Japan on this first trip. It’s a lengthy trip, it’s taking him to four or five countries but not Japan. What’s the problem with that, as Kevin Rudd said he is visiting Tokyo twice this year? ANDREW ROBB: Yes, but Fran, this is our biggest export market by a country mile. I think somewhere between twenty and twenty five per cent of our total export income is derived from Japan. This is our best friend in Asia: Our best friend and what’s happened to date, we have asked the Prime Minister now for four months to pick up the phone to Mr Fukuda, one of the first things we did as a country when the Prime Minister took office was to send gun boats after the whaling ships of the Japanese. FRAN KELLY: Do you disagree with that? ANDREW ROBB: No. It’s a legitimate prerogative of the government. But what we did say at the time was, given the nature of our friendship with Japan, the very least from Prime Minister to Prime Minister there should be a conversation when you have a great point of difference with a friend you communicate, you communicate. As I understand to date there has not been, the phone has not been picked up in four months, despite also the quadilateral dialogue which involved Japan, India, Australia and the US, being abandoned by this government-it was announced at a press conference by Stephen Smith with the Foreign Minister of China. Now, all of these signals to Japan appeared to be resonating in a most inappropriate way in Japan they are a close friend and for the life of us we can’t understand in a seventeen day trip where he flies over Japan and spends four days in China that he cannot spend one hour in Japan consolidating, nurturing and further building on the wonderful relationship and the important relationship we have with that great country. FRAN KELLY: Okay. Just finally Kevin Rudd is building on the China relationship. He is visiting there for several days as you say. Should he raise the issue of Tibet in the talks with the Chinese leadership and are you happy so far with the position of the Australian government on what’s going on? ANDREW ROBB: Most certainly. I think it should be raised most certainly and I think the comments to date have been appropriate by the Prime Minister and Stephen Smith. FRAN KELLY: Andrew Robb, Thank you very much for joining us on Breakfast. ANDREW ROBB: Thank you Fran. FRAN KELLY: Shadow Foreign Minister, Andrew Robb. End   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:767 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/762/Japanese-snub-needs-urgent-correction.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=762 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=762&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/762/Japanese-snub-needs-urgent-correction.aspx   The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, has angered and offended the Japanese. Whatever way you look at it Mr Rudd has snubbed the Japanese by not including Japan in his 17-day world wide tour. The Prime Minister should pick up the phone to his Japanese counterpart, Mr Fukuda, as the Coalition has been suggesting for three months, and he should re-jig his itinerary for his proposed trip around the world to include Japan, our closest friend in Asia. The problem is the Prime Minister, by ignoring Japan and including four days in China, has given offence to an ally and major trading partner. This comes on the back of one of the first actions of the Rudd Government; to send a gun boat in surveillance of a Japanese whaling vessel. The failure of Mr Rudd to pick up the phone to Mr Fukuda to explain our concerns was bad diplomacy and has damaged Australia’s case against whaling. The other area of concern is around the Rudd Government’s decision to abandon the quadrilateral talks with the US, India and Japan – and the decision of the Foreign Minister, Mr Smith, to announce this abandonment at a press conference with the Chinese Foreign Minister after Mr Smith failed to raise it in talks in his earlier trip to Japan. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620    Andrew Robb MP Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:762 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/761/Cricket-tour-of-Pakistan-postponed.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=761 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=761&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/761/Cricket-tour-of-Pakistan-postponed.aspx   The postponement of the Australian Cricket team’s tour of Pakistan is the right decision, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “The decision by Cricket Australia, in consultation with the Pakistan Cricket Board, to delay the tour due to security concerns is a sensible response to the current situation on the ground in Pakistan,” Mr Robb said. “While it is disappointing for many members of both teams and so many cricket fans that the tour is not going ahead at the moment, the safety of everybody concerned is the priority. “I also take this opportunity to remind Australians to reconsider any need to travel to Pakistan due to the current threats and risks. “Australian authorities continue to warn travellers that there have been credible reports received that indicate terrorists are in the advanced stages of planning attacks that could target Western or Australian interests and individuals and places frequented by foreigners. “I direct all Australians planning to head overseas to make sure they check out the ‘Smart Traveller’ website at www.smartraveller.gov.au before they depart and while they are overseas,” Mr Robb said. “I look forward to new dates for the Australian cricket team’s tour of Pakistan being announced in the near future.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:761 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/760/Rudds-role-in-the-Solomon-Islands-should-be-to-continue-the-good-work-of-the-previous-Government.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=760 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=760&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/760/Rudds-role-in-the-Solomon-Islands-should-be-to-continue-the-good-work-of-the-previous-Government.aspx   Kevin Rudd should use his visit to the Solomon Islands on Saturday to commit to continuing the good work of the Howard Government. The Howard Government's strong level of support to the security of the Solomon Islands via RAMSI has been a crucial factor in that countries return to stability. The recent visit and comments by newly appointed Prime Minister Derrick Sikua's have shown that the Solomon Islands remains committed to RAMSI's ongoing success. As Australia and the Solomon Islands are two separate sovereign countries issues will arise from time to time that cause disagreements. Any differences that had previously existed between the two countries were over genuine issues, including the escape of the former Solomon Islands Attorney-General, Julian Moti, and conditions around transparency and governance. The Coalition remains committed to a healthy relationship with the Solomon Islands and to strongly supporting stability and democracy in our region. We hope that the Rudd Government will build on the excellent record of the Howard Government when it came to the delivery of aid, funding and support to our nearest neighbours. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:760 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/759/Rudds-role-in-PNG-should-be-to-continue-the-good-work-of-the-previous-Government.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=759 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=759&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/759/Rudds-role-in-PNG-should-be-to-continue-the-good-work-of-the-previous-Government.aspx   Kevin Rudd’s statement that he alone is going to usher in a “new age of cooperation” between Papua New Guinea and Australia raises more questions than it answers. The Howard Government provided record financial aid to PNG, budgeted for $355 million in 2007-08, and introduced the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) to improve governance, reduce corruption and to enhance services for PNG in the areas of education, health, HIV/AIDS, infrastructure, law and justice and rural development. As Australia and PNG are two separate sovereign countries issues will arise from time to time that cause disagreements. Any differences that had previously existed between the two countries were over genuine issues, including the escape of the former Solomon Islands Attorney-General, Julian Moti, via PNG, and conditions around transparency and governance, particularly when it came to the use of Australian aid funding. If Mr Rudd is saying that he will not take a stand against countries no matter what occurs; he is effectively writing a blank cheque. At a time when Mr Rudd and his government are telling carers, the sick and disabled and those in need of Government services that they have to miss out, he should be making it clear that Australian funds must be used wisely – both at home and overseas. The Coalition remains committed to a healthy relationship with PNG and hopes that the Rudd Government will build on the excellent record of the Howard Government when it came to the delivery of aid and funding to our nearest neighbours. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:759 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/758/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy--ABC-Television-Insiders.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=758 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=758&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/758/Interview-with-Barrie-Cassidy--ABC-Television-Insiders.aspx   BARRIE CASSIDY, PRESENTER: Andrew Robb, good morning, welcome. ANDREW ROBB, SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Good morning Barrie. BARRIE CASSIDY: Were you pleased with the way Friday's protest went? ANDREW ROBB: I thought it was effective. I did. Look, this is a contemptible precedent that the Prime Minister is seeking to impose on the Parliament and on the democratic process, and we have to take ... we will not accept this. This is unacceptable what he is seeking to do. And Friday was a very important initiative by us to expose to people what the Prime Minister is seeking to do, and that is to schedule regular sittings of Parliament where neither he nor his ministers are present or accountable. It is unacceptable. BARRIE CASSIDY: But there's no ... look, Question Time still goes ahead as in the past, four days a week. He's added an extra day for the benefit of backbenchers. ANDREW ROBB: Barrie, we'll have sittings of Parliament, full day sittings where there are no Question Times, where the Prime Minister and his... BARRIE CASSIDY: But it's an extra day is the point I make, they're not cutting back on sitting days, they're not cutting back on Question Times. ANDREW ROBB: There is a precedent being set here. We're back to the Keating era where Paul Keating, the arrogance of Paul Keating to avoid Question Times. We're seeing another version of this where the Prime Minister of the day is seeking to be absent from the Parliament and his ministers as well. He and his ministers... BARRIE CASSIDY: But you can't draw that comparison because Paul Keating did reduce the amount of time that he spent in the Parliament. Kevin Rudd is not doing that. ANDREW ROBB: Barrie, this is a very dangerous precedent. If he gets this in place, how does it extend into the future? The bottom line is if the Prime Minister, as he said, his motivation is to get more time for government business, all he had was pick up the phone and consult with his own colleagues. His own colleagues haven't been consulted. They all think this is a dog, you talk to them privately, they think this is outrageous, his own colleagues. Now, if he picked up the phone to us and said, "I want another two hours of government business", we would accommodate that. We'd do it today. We'd do it today in the four days of sitting, with extra weeks of sitting, with extra hours of sitting. Whatever he wants, we would do it. But we will not create a precedent where the Prime Minister of the day is absent and his ministers. They're not there and they're not accountable. BARRIE CASSIDY: Is the real issue here is that MPs simply don't want to be in Canberra on Fridays? ANDREW ROBB: No, it's not. It is a question of account ... if he wants Friday sittings, we will accommodate that. But there needs to be Question Time, there needs to be divisions, there needs to be quorums, there needs to be a constitutional sitting of the Parliament, as was conceived by our forebears. Not some attempt by the Prime Minister to avoid scrutiny and accountability. BARRIE CASSIDY: The most disturbing aspect though seemed to be the sight of politicians refusing to leave the chamber when directed to do so by the Speaker. ANDREW ROBB: Well, our point there was to demonstrate that the change to the standing orders to allow him to avoid being present and accountable and his ministers, that the changes that he has sought to make puts the Speaker in a totally invidious position. And it also showed that the government of the day couldn't control business in the House. We were trying to make very important points with the activities on Friday. BARRIE CASSIDY: Well, of course the Speaker can't control the House if you break precedent and you refuse to take directions from the Speaker. Surely that is fundamental to parliamentary policy and respect for the chair? ANDREW ROBB: He couldn't control the House because his decision to exclude somebody could not go to a vote. That's what and that is ... they've stopped divisions, they've stopped quorums, and they've stopped the Question Time. Kevin Rudd is making this Parliament unworkable. It is a most dangerous precedent. People have to understand what's going on here, and the significance of... BARRIE CASSIDY: But you say he's making it unworkable. Not in 11 and a half years did a Labor member refuse to leave the chamber when directed to do so by the Speaker. ANDREW ROBB: Because the Speaker had access to a division. He could get a ruling from the chamber on his ... he could get a decision from the chamber on his ruling. On Friday, that was not possible because divisions under the new standing orders for Fridays when Kevin Rudd and his ministers are not there, the new standing orders precludes divisions and quorums. BARRIE CASSIDY: So the protest will go on? ANDREW ROBB: We will go on until we get this removed, this contemptible action by the Prime Minister changed. If he wants more government business, we will accommodate that 100 per cent. There's 10 other ways we can do that without making this unacceptable change to parliamentary procedure. BARRIE CASSIDY: Well, since the election the Coalition has ticked ratifying Kyoto, you've abandoned WorkChoices, you've supported an apology. It's a world of difference from the days of John Howard. ANDREW ROBB: Well, we lost. I mean, we lost by 5.5 per cent and it was a big loss and we took a big hit. And we have to look at why we lost, do some repositioning. Not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We were exceptionally successful, I think, as a government in so many respects. We've got to draw on those strengths. But on those things that cost us government, we have to move, we have to move quickly. And in many ways we're copping it because we are making changes. BARRIE CASSIDY: One area: if Peter Costello had taken over the leadership in the run up to the election, he would have ratified Kyoto. He said that, he thinks it should have been done a long time ago. You think had that occurred, you would have done better with the youth vote? ANDREW ROBB: I think we would have done better with many age groups in that sense. But WorkChoices was the biggest symbol. We really lost this - we lost it for all sorts of reasons - but WorkChoices became a symbol to the people who had to delivered us government on many occasions, the "Howard battlers" that we had tuned out a bit to them. And you know, that wasn't picked up by us well enough even though our members, many of our own membership out there were telling us. Now, we had to move on that. We now have killed WorkChoices without compromising our principles. We have killed WorkChoices and we have moved on other fronts such as Kyoto, such as the apology. They're all important issues. BARRIE CASSIDY: I recall interviewing you after 1996 election when the Coalition won of course, and that's when you first articulated the "Howard battlers" concept. You understood it so well in '96. How is it that John Howard didn't seem to understand it in 2007? ANDREW ROBB: Look, I think the thing is longevity of government, longevity in any organisation, you've got people at the top for a very long time. They can, you know, it's not just John Howard, it's the team. It can lose touch. We also had control of the Senate, and in some ways it became a bit of a poisoned chalice because we did things, we could do things, we did a lot of good things with control of the Senate, some wonderful things which will stand as a great legacy to Australia, but in some ways, we went too far. And with WorkChoices, we went too far and we didn't hear the message from the Howard ... from the battlers and from others. BARRIE CASSIDY: So, without the discipline of an effective Senate, you can go too far, you can overreach? ANDREW ROBB: I think that, you know, it's been an eye-opener. Again, it depends on what stage of government you're in too, I think. If you've been there for a long time and you don't have the house of review working as it usually does, it can mean that you may not be alert to, you know, the cross-section of views in the community and respond accordingly. BARRIE CASSIDY: You say you've retained your integrity on WorkChoices, but industrial relations will surely always be the defining issue between the two parties. Presumably you will have a very different policy to the government by 2010? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we will review our policy, but the fact is we've decided not to oppose their bill because if you look at Labor's legislation as we have done now in the last fortnight, in that legislation is agreements for individuals, to strike an agreement with their employer with a no-disadvantage test attached. The big mistake we made in WorkChoices was to scrap the no-disadvantage test. That's what killed us there. That's where we overreached. Now, we've killed WorkChoices, and by that we have accepted the importance of no-disadvantage test. Embedded in Labor's policy is an individual agreement with a no-disadvantage test and that's why we're not opposing their legislation. We’ve stayed true with our principles on that score. BARRIE CASSIDY: So how though can you stray from the government's position without leaving yourself exposed to a scare campaign? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we'll look at what they'll do. I mean, they've said they won't have the unions running rampant. I mean, I know my business contacts already are telling me that they're being muscled by unions on the waterfront and in other parts of the economy, in the construction sector. We'll see how they perform and we will respond in a policy sense according to the mistakes they're making. BARRIE CASSIDY: Are you surprised on foreign policy about how smoothly Australia has been able to withdraw its combat troops from Iraq? ANDREW ROBB: Well, you know, as Angus Houston said the other day, no matter who had won government, that removal was going to take place. We'd already started discussions with the Americans on that front. I hear a lot about ... BARRIE CASSIDY: That's not what you were saying in the run up to the election, though. You were talking about it emboldening terrorists, and was all that just so much empty rhetoric? ANDREW ROBB: Well, in August last year and during the campaign, John Howard quite explicitly ... and Alexander Downer explicitly talked about a time would come this year when we would start to replace combat troops with training troops. Look, I hear a lot about in the foreign affairs area about, you know, sort of measured change of government. But you know, I look at the situation, what's happened in the first three months? We've told India that we don't trust them with our uranium. The government has ripped $50 million out of a lean foreign affairs budget, including a NATO officer in Brussels. We've downgraded their free trade agreements with China and Japan (correction). We've scrapped ... the government scrapped, abandoned the quadrilateral dialogue with India and the US and Japan, making Japan wonder about our China bias. Stephen Smith went to the US and spoke to 200 US investors and talked down Australia. And we sent a gunboat after the Japanese (correction) whaling ships without the PM picking up the phone to Fukuda. Now these things ... this is not a measured start to foreign affairs. BARRIE CASSIDY: You talk about Stephen Smith talking down Australia. You might recall that the Prime Minister said when he was talking about the US election, that if he was making the running in Al Qaeda, he would pray for a victory by Obama and the Democrats. Now, was that another illustration of how the Prime Minister was out of touch and that longevity was kicking in? ANDREW ROBB: I think you can see the smoothness with which the US alliance has transferred to the Rudd Government, a lot of that owes ... is owed to the strength of the alliance that John Howard had established with the US, and I think again that's an enduring legacy that will stand Australia in good stead, and hopefully the government in good stead. BARRIE CASSIDY: How long can the Coalition go on putting up with stories like Peter Costello being on holidays in Bali while the party is meeting in Canberra, Alexander Downer is out to lunch during Question Time. Isn't it time to sort out what these guys are going to do long term? ANDREW ROBB: Well, I think they and Peter McGauran have indicated that they're looking to move on. I don't think that's ... that's not unreasonable. It's a bit like Paul Keating after the '96 election. I think it was sensible for him to move on and we are ... it does provide us with a great opportunity for renewal. But I agree, this needs to be sorted, I think, in this first half of the year. They need to think through what they want to do and how they want to do it and we as a party need to take the opportunity to find some ... again, some further outstanding candidates to help the renewal that's taking place very rapidly within our party. BARRIE CASSIDY: So, you think the middle of the year is a reasonable time for them to get their sort of future in order? ANDREW ROBB: I think so. I think, you know, we have to use this year. We're going to have to a tough six to 12 months because we've had a big loss and we have to reposition. And we are making all the changes you talked about earlier. We've now in a bloodless way had a change of president, an outstanding fellow, Alan Stockdale, has come in. We've got a party review process under way. There's a lot happening, and there's more things for us to review. It will be a difficult six to 12 months for all of us. And part of that is, you know, sorting out those that are leaving and finding strong replacements. But if we do all that, we will be competitive very quickly, and we can, you know, hold this government accountable and be competitive at the next election. BARRIE CASSIDY: And in the meantime, while they're looking around, should they stay a little more focused? ANDREW ROBB: Oh look, they know their responsibilities and I think this will sort quickly. You know we ... as I said earlier, we are copping it in a way because we are making lots of changes. We need to. But we can't be deterred from that. BARRIE CASSIDY: Thanks for your time this morning. Appreciate it. ANDREW ROBB: Thanks Barrie. END Link to the video of the interview: http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/   Andrew Robb MP Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:758 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/755/Statement-on-East-Timor.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=755 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=755&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/755/Statement-on-East-Timor.aspx   The Federal Opposition is concerned by the actions that took place in one of our nearest neighbours, East Timor, this morning against President Jose Ramos-Horta and Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao. “I am deeply concerned by the reports of the injuries sustained by President Ramos-Horta but relieved that he is now considered to be stable,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “I am also relieved that Prime Minister Gusmao is allegedly safe and unharmed. “The attempted assassination of the top tier of leadership in East Timor is incredibly disturbing. “The Federal Opposition supports any moves to provide extra assistance to East Timor at this time in addition to maintaining the levels of Australian Defence Force and Federal Police numbers in the country. “The Liberal and National Parties have a proud history in providing the assistance necessary for East Timor become an independent nation. “The stability and safety of East Timor and its residents is of major importance to the Federal Opposition and we will consider all requests for further assistance very positively,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:755 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/754/Last-chance-for-Smith-to-correct-the-record.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=754 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=754&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/754/Last-chance-for-Smith-to-correct-the-record.aspx   Statement by the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP Before Australia’s Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, leaves the United States today, he should explain to the many angry US-based Australian businessmen and women what he intends to do to correct the perception, created in his “inept” speech to over 200 US investors in New York, that Australia is not an attractive investment option. Reportedly, Mr Smith’s comments effectively “warned off” potential investors, leaving many of those who were considering putting money into our country having second thoughts. At a time of global economic uncertainty and with the Australian economy in very strong shape, Australia needs a Government that is putting the nation’s interests first and not trying to score cheap political points overseas at the expense of Aussie jobs and investment. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:754 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/752/Australia-India-relationship-damaged-by-Rudd-Government-indecision.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=752 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=752&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/752/Australia-India-relationship-damaged-by-Rudd-Government-indecision.aspx   The Federal Opposition has reiterated calls for Australia to sell uranium to India for peaceful power generation uses, and also urged the Rudd Government to support India’s opportunity to purchase uranium from other countries. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Andrew Robb, said Britain’s agreement yesterday to strongly support a consensus decision, by the 45 nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to give the green light to civil supply of uranium to India, further strengthens the case for Australia’s support. India is the world’s largest democracy, an increasingly influential regional power and an important potential strategic partner for Australia. “The Rudd Government’s decision to reverse the former Coalition government agreement to supply India with uranium for power generation is a serious snub to India, and reduces India’s capacity to combat climate change. “For Australia to now drag its feet on a decision whether to block uranium sales to India by other countries, rubs further salt in the wound,” said Mr Robb. Nuclear power generation would be a safe, sustainable and non-polluting source of energy for India, which is a major emitter of greenhouse gases with rapidly growing energy needs. “As Australia only makes up 1.5% of the total global greenhouse gases, any real impact that our country can have on climate change should include assisting large developing nations like India to significantly reduce their level of CO2 emissions by facilitating nuclear power generation.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:752 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/753/Overseas-visit-by-Foreign-Minister-must-get-results.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=753 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=753&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/753/Overseas-visit-by-Foreign-Minister-must-get-results.aspx   Foreign Minister Stephen Smith’s visit to Washington DC, as the first representative of the Rudd Government, and Japan must achieve three things, said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, today. “1) It must confirm that the close relationship built over many years and further developed by the Howard Government remains as strong as ever. “2) Mr Smith must explain to the United States why the Prime Minister saw it necessary to use his first speech on the international stage (Bali) to take a swipe at the US on climate change - after he had failed to raise the issue when he met the President in Sydney last September. “3) Finally, during Mr Smith’s subsequent visit to Japan he must explain why the Australian Government has downgraded its pursuit of a Free Trade Agreement, on which so much work has already been done, and why the Prime Minister could not practice effective diplomacy by picking up the phone to his Japanese counterpart to explain Australia’s gunboat diplomacy on whaling.” “Mr Smith’s visit will be rightfully seen to a failure if he cannot achieve these points,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:753 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/751/China-Free-Trade-Agreement-Australians-overseas-to-lose-out.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=751 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=751&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/751/China-Free-Trade-Agreement-Australians-overseas-to-lose-out.aspx   “I am very concerned that Labor is cutting the Foreign Affairs Budget by almost $58 million over the forward estimates despite total silence about any cuts in the lead up the election and constant beatings about our Balance of Trade situation,” said the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP. The cuts of $57.25 million compares with a net increase in the 2007-08 Budget of only $2.7 million. “The cuts in staff positions in overseas posts, caused by this reduction of $58 million in funding, will have negative consequences for Australian tourists and Australian businesses,” Mr Robb said. The Foreign Affairs and Trade positions that are held in other countries around the world are to assist Australians when they are travelling and to assist Australian companies expanding into overseas markets. “At no time during, or in the lead-up to, last year’s election did Labor say that a Rudd Government would be reducing Australia representation overseas and Labor’s $10 million cuts to the team that are negotiating a free trade agreement with China is short sighted and could derail an important bi-lateral process. “The reduction of two members of that team makes a mockery of claims by Trade Minister Simon Crean last week claims that there have been no cutbacks to the China FTA negotiating team. “This is another example of Labor saying one thing before the election and doing another thing afterwards,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:751 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/750/Labors-plans-for-Nauru-Immigration-Centre-not-thought-through.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=750 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=750&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/750/Labors-plans-for-Nauru-Immigration-Centre-not-thought-through.aspx   “The Rudd Labor Government’s plans to shut the immigration detention centre in Nauru show that they have again failed to think through the effect of their policies and the impact they will have on Australia’s international relations,” The Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon. Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “The closure of this centre and the impact it will have on unauthorised migration has not been thought through and the new Labor Government has failed to discuss the closure with the Government of Nauru,” said the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison. “This follows Labor’s failure to speak with the Japanese Prime Minister prior to announcing that ships and planes would be dispatched to monitor whaling,” said Mr Robb. “The dismantling of the centres on Nauru and Manus Island sends a clear message to people smugglers that Australia is relaxing border control on unauthorised boat arrivals,” said Senator Ellison. Media Contacts: Senator Ellison’s office: Kate Walshe, 0411 472 299 Mr Robb’s office: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620   Andrew Robb MP Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:750 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/748/Rudd-must-act-on-Moti-immediately.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=748 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=748&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/748/Rudd-must-act-on-Moti-immediately.aspx   The Australian Government must make sure that former Solomon Islands Attorney-General, Julian Moti, is immediately detained by local authorities and brought back to Australia within days to face child sex allegations. The Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, said today that there are strong rumours that Mr Moti is looking to escape to Fiji. “Amidst rumours that Mr Moti might again try to escape facing these charges it is imperative that he is immediately detained and returned to Australia within days so that he faces justice,” Mr Robb said. Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:748 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/749/Election-of-Dr-Derrick-Sikua-as-Prime-Minister-of-the-Solomon-Islands.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=749 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=749&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/749/Election-of-Dr-Derrick-Sikua-as-Prime-Minister-of-the-Solomon-Islands.aspx   Following the election of a new Prime Minister in the Solomon Islands, the Federal Opposition has called on the Rudd Labor Government to immediately seek the extradition of Julian Moti to face child sex allegations. “I would like to congratulate Dr Derrick Sikua on his election as Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands,” the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Andrew Robb AO MP, said today. “Dr Sikua was elected by an overwhelming number of his Parliamentary colleagues and the Liberal and National Parties look forward to supporting the continuing program to assist the Solomon Islands that was initiated by the previous government. “I hope the Australian Government has already communicated to the new Prime Minister the importance that this country places on Mr Moti answering the allegations that have been made against him and has offered any and all assistance to ensure this takes place as soon as possible. “I am also encouraged by the new Government’s stated intention, prior to the election of Dr Sikua as Prime Minister, that they would facilitate the return of Moti back to Australia.” Media Contact: Stuart Eaton, 0433 298 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:749 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/579/Irwins-comment-on-Israel-disgraceful.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=579 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=579&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/579/Irwins-comment-on-Israel-disgraceful.aspx Andrew Robb, the Federal Member for Goldstein today condemned the Labor Member for Fowler, Julia Irwin’s, latest attack on Israel. On Tuesday night (September 13th 2005) in the House of Representatives, Ms Irwin evoked language of the Holocaust in her criticism of Israel’s approach to the Gaza Strip labelling it “a walled ghetto, a giant penal colony, a concentration camp”. Twice in her speech Ms Irwin referred to the policies of the Government of Israel as “ethnic cleansing”, such phraseology being deeply offensive to Jewish people. Ms Irwin withdrew her comments following pressure from the Liberal Government, who have further requested that Ms Irwin be disciplined for her comments. “I find the comments made by the Member for Fowler to be totally unacceptable” said Andrew Robb “Her language shows a breathtaking ignorance, and her comments should be publicly denounced by the Labor Party and the Opposition Leader Kim Beazley.” “If Mr Beazley fails to discipline Ms Irwin, and to condemn her comments it would place a big question mark over the sincerity of Labor’s comments about Israel.” Media Contact: Kathryn Hodges 0409 316 620 Andrew Robb MP Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:579 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/571/Transcript--730-Report--GetUp.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=571 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=571&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/571/Transcript--730-Report--GetUp.aspx KERRY O’BRIEN: For those with an interest in politics, but no stomach for the grind of branch meetings and number crunching, a new political organisation called GetUp.org.au might catch your attention. Inspired by the Move On organisation in the United States, GetUp is aimed at people who want to have a political say but don't have the time or inclination to be part of the mainstream. GetUp encourages voters to sign up and use the dotcom's resources to make their views known to politicians. The virtual lobby group will begin its life here with a series of advertisements on national television, warning coalition Senators face a backlash if they abuse the Senate majority. Mark Bannerman reports. WOMAN IN AD: You've got control of the Senate now. MAN IN AD: The other parties can't hold you accountable anymore. But we will. MARK BANNERMAN: What do you do when the Government holds the balance of power in the Senate for the first time in 30 years? Answer - you form a virtual political party, create an ad campaign and target coalition senators. JEREMY HEIMANS, GetUp.Org: GetUp is a way to get ordinary people back into politics. People who are tired of institutional politics, people who aren't happy with the direction this country's going. DAVE MADDDEN, GetUp.Org: Well, the message that we're delivering the simple. The Opposition parties can't hold you to account anymore. They no longer have the balance of power in the Senate. So it's now up to the Australian people to hold you account and the Australian people will. MARK BANNERMAN: Jeremy Heimans and Dave Madden are the brains behind GetUp.org. Using expertise gathered while working in the United States they've created an organisation they hope will give voters on the progressive side of politics a new voice in Canberra. Why do we need it? DAVE MADDEN: Firstly there's many, many people out there who are very very concerned about the direction the country has gone in the last nine years and particularly about the direction in which the Howard Government is planning to take the country. But those people, although they care about lots of issues, they're not necessarily going to go out there and join a political party in order to take action on those issues. And so GetUp.org.au is a way of providing people with a practical means of taking action on issues they care about. MARK BANNERMAN: The remarkable thing about GetUp is just how easy it makes it for you to contact your elected representatives. You simply go to the site, it gives you a list of senators and creates an email format that allows you to pass on the ad and your own message. So will it have an impact? Well key Liberal backbencher Andrew Robb has run a few political campaigns himself and says it's slick, but it's flawed. ANDREW ROBB, LIBERAL BACKBENCHER: It's first and foremost, let's not mince word, it is an anti-Government group and it's not there to keep us accountable. it's there to run an alternative policy agenda. MARK BANNERMAN: Significantly, the senators on the website that are targeted are all from the Coalition and that tells Andrew Robb all he needs to know about GetUp. ANDREW ROBB: It's a front for the Labor Party, it's a political front. They're quite entitled to do it, it's a free country, but it's a political front. That's what it is. MARK BANNERMAN: So are you just a front for the Labor Party? JEREMY HEIMANS: Absolutely not. I mean, it's very difficult to be a front for the Labor Party when you have the Liberal Party involved, you have the Greens, you have, as you've just said, people from a whole variety of political background. We'd be a confused front for the Labor Party if we were. DAVE MADDEN: To be clear, Mark, neither Jeremy or I have never been a member of any political party. MARK BANNERMAN: To back this view, the principals of GetUp point out that the board overseeing their dotcom include former Liberal Party leader John Hewson, Internet millionaire Evan Thornely and union boss Bill Shorten. BILL SHORTEN, AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION: What's interesting about this board of GetUp.com is on the right you've John Hewson who I haven't voted for and to be fair to him I don't think he's voted for me. Then on the left you've got Kate Firman from the Greens. I suppose you've got myself from the AWU somewhere in the middle. It's not a straightforward, it's not a traditional coalition, if you like. MARK BANNERMAN: So what will this non-traditional coalition pick as its first campaign issue? Well judging by the ad, there's plenty to choose from and plenty to argue about, too. The thing that just hits people on talkback and has had a big effect is industrial relations. It cries out to be the first campaign. Is that going to be it? JEREMY HEIMANS: Well, you'll have to wait and is find out, MARK BANNERMAN: In the United States, where the GetUp team learned and art of dotcom politics they had no trouble finding a political issue. GEORGE w. BUSH, US PRESIDENT: Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere? Nope, no weapons over there. (LAUGHTER) WOMAN: My brother died in Baghdad on 29 April. I watched President Bush make a joke, looking around for weapons of mass destruction. MARK BANNERMAN: Using money raised on the Internet Jeremy Heimans and Dave Madden helped create ads attacking George Bush's foreign policy and that created controversy. ADVERTISEMENT: George Bush, he doesn't get it. ADVERTISEMENT #2: Even Republicans are calling that ad the most brutal of the campaign. MARK BANNERMAN: Come election-time, might future GetUp ads target key Government ministers here. JEREMY HEIMANS: In Australia, you know, there are important issue of character and leadership and absolutely we'll be addressing issues of character and leadership. MARK BANNERMAN: How tough can you get? JEREMY HEIMANS: It's not a question of being tough, it's a question of speaking directly. MARK BANNERMAN: Already, it's clear in Australia GetUp is having an impact. Coalition senators across the country have already started receiving emails by the thousands. And it seems this new twist on the democratic process is creating some angst. ANDREW ROBB, LIBERAL BACKBENCHER: There are hundreds of emails arriving in Senator's officers. They're beside themselves, just to clear the screen. They get back to their office from meetings looking for important communications from whoever, and they're confronted with screen after screen of these emails, in some cases over 200 emails. This is highly irresponsible, this is spam, this is spam. MARK BANNERMAN: So, a new form of political lobby group or party has arrived. Will it have an impact? Well Bill Shorten isn't sure. BILL SHORTEN: Does it attract a group of people who are currently not active in politics, who are disengaged from the political process? If it attracts thousands of these people then you'd have to say it was a pretty worthwhile venture. If it doesn't, then you'd have to say we tried that but it doesn't work here. People don't want to get involved in the political process through the Internet. MARK BANNERMAN: GetUp's founders, though, are far more positive. DAVID MADDEN: We're hoping over time to be able to build up a list in the hundreds of thousands. MARK BANNERMAN: Really? That many? DAVID MADDEN: Absolutely, sure. MARK BANNERMAN: So you believe you can have real impact? DAVID MADDEN: Yep. MARK BANNERMAN: DAVID MADDEN: No question about that? No question about it. KERRY O’BRIEN: Mark Bannerman   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:571 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/512/Lateline-ABC-Transcript.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=512 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=512&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/512/Lateline-ABC-Transcript.aspx Lateline – ABC February 11th 2005 Transcript Reporter: Maxine McKew MAXINE McKEW: Federal parliamentarians returned to Canberra this week, and it all looked like - well, a lot like it did a few years back. The supremacy of the government is obvious; Kim Beazley is back at Labor's helm; and to nobody's surprise, John Howard appeared to suggest that he'd be more than happy to stay around until 2007 to host the APEC summit in Sydney that year. There was yet another argument about pork, continuing questions about interest rate rises, and a prime ministerial commitment to introduce a national industrial relations system. Well, tonight, the view from the back bench - the new member for Goldstein, Liberal Andrew Robb, and the member for Melbourne, Labor's Lindsay Tanner. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I want to first start tonight on the good news, which of course has been running in bulletins all day: the Charles and Camilla nuptials, which prove, I guess, it's never too late to go to the altar. Lindsay Tanner, I gather you're going to be in London around the time of the spring wedding. Are you going to angle for an invite to the wedding? LINDSAY TANNER (LABOR BACKBENCHER): Yes, I'm actually planning to be in London for a few days to study public-private partnerships in early April, so maybe there's another public-private partnership to add to the list that I could go along and check out. I'm not expecting an invite, Max, but given that I'm a multiple marrier myself, maybe I could go along and give Charles a bit of private advice, a bit of friendly advice. MAXINE McKEW: Might be able to do with it. I guess the more serious point is that the Australian Republican Movement today has said that if we don't become a republic before Charles becomes king, then both Camilla and Charles clearly will be significant constitutional figures in Australia. Lindsay Tanner, does that matter? Should they be? LINDSAY TANNER: In the broader scheme of things, it doesn't really matter. We shouldn't make judgments about these issues based on individual personalities. Some monarchs will be good; some will be not so good. My position's on principle, and that is that we should not have any serious positions in our system of government based on birth. It should be based on merit and it should be for Australians. We should have an Australian head of state where all Australians, young and old, can aspire to that position, and where it's determined on the basis of merit, not because you happen to be accidentally born into some family. MAXINE McKEW: Andrew Robb, I guess you'd agree with that, given your history in terms of the constitutional arguments and the monarchy? ANDREW ROBB (LIBERAL BACKBENCHER): Well, I don't agree fully on that. Certainly I'm a keen republican, but I'm very proud of our history. I mean, I think the monarchy's played a very important stabilising role, but I think it's moved on. For my part, I don't think - whether it's Queen Elizabeth or King Charles or King William, that's not the issue. For me, they've been a great part of our history, but the anchor that the monarchy has provided through a lot of our history has diminished. They've drifted apart. Certainly, it's vastly different to when I was a young person. The monarchy, despite having a queen that's, I think, highly regarded by nearly all Australians, no longer serves the role that she played even 30 years ago, 20 years ago, for that matter. So there's a vacuum being created, and that's why I think we need an Australian head of state, for that reason. MAXINE McKEW: Let's move on to some other issues. First to the Treasurer's decision today not to stand in the way of Xstrata's bid for Western Mining. Andrew Robb, would you say the correct decision? ANDREW ROBB: I think so - yes, very much so. I mean, Peter's job today was to see whether a change of ownership to Xstrata, if it did take place - and, of course, the shareholders will make that decision in the end - but whether it was in the national interest or not, and he judged, on a whole raft of criteria, that it was not against the national interest. That was the decision he had to take, and the way I look at it, it bears no resemblance to the Shell Woodside episode a little while ago. If you recall then, people were concerned, the government was concerned that Shell had a whole lot of other projects elsewhere in the world which might have compromised when things like the north west shelf was developed. In this instance, if Xstrata do take over Western Mining, as I understand it, something in the order of 70 per cent of all their assets will be in Australia. So they've got a real incentive to get on and mine and do what they're supposed to do. MAXINE McKEW: Lindsay Tanner, what about you? Has the Treasurer made the right call today? LINDSAY TANNER: I think he's made the correct decision. I haven't followed the fine detail of the issue, Maxine, but the crucial national interest is in more investment, more economic activity, more jobs, and what people forget in discussing issues of this nature is that when the Australian shareholders of Western Mining sell their shares to a foreign company like Xstrata, they usually will invest the bulk of the proceeds in other economic activity in Australia. So there should be a substantial net increase in the amount of investment in Australia. That's the key positive that comes out of this. Now, obviously, there are specific issues that need to be addressed, but broadly, we should be in favour of foreign investment. This country's been built on foreign investment; we have an economy that is dependent upon foreign capital inflow, so I think he's made the right decision. MAXINE McKEW: There is a related issue for Labor, though, Lindsay Tanner. Given Labor's vexed history over uranium, is the party now sanguine, would you say, about the economic windfall that could come on the back of increased uranium exports, and of course, you know what the prices are at the moment. LINDSAY TANNER: That's essentially a separate issue. We don't make regulatory decisions about the very difficult issues of uranium mining and nuclear proliferation based on company ownership. Those decisions have to be made by laws and regulations, not on the basis of choosing who you want to own a particular company. The reality is we do have some uranium mining in Australia. I'm as concerned about that as many others. But you can't regulate that by picking and choosing who the company owner might be. An Australian owner might do the wrong thing on some things; a foreign owner may not. You just don't know. You've got to make those regulatory decisions as a matter of law, not as a matter of selecting owners. ANDREW ROBB: Maxine, on that point, I mean, there is a raft of State and federal legislation and regulation which governs both the mining and the export of uranium, so ownership, I think, is quite irrelevant. There is every opportunity for authorities in Australia, State and federal, to make judgments about the merit of where uranium might be considered to be sold. MAXINE McKEW: If I can move on to another issue now, and still with you, Andrew Robb: we are seeing the best employment figures we've really had in decades, but of course, rapid jobs growth is making an interest rate rise much more likely. There wasn't much mention, was there, of this connection during last year's election campaign? ANDREW ROBB: Well, we've had under 6 per cent for quite a while. I see this sort of theme starting to emerge. Of course when you get very low levels of unemployment, which is a wonderful thing, you're going to get increased pressure in some areas on the demand for jobs, and that will put some pressure on wages. But wage increases don't necessarily mean higher interest rates, higher inflation. I mean, you look back, we've had 8.5, 9 years of real wage increases over 13 per cent. Now, we've had still, through that whole period, very low inflation, very low interest rates. MAXINE McKEW: But what we're seeing now - the Queensland power workers, I think, a 30 per cent rise; the Holden, the Toyota workers, big rises mooted there, and of course, the Reserve Bank was putting out some very strong hints this week. ANDREW ROBB: Well, again - look, I've been out in business for a few years, and back over the last four or five years, I would have heard - on several occasions, conventional wisdom was such that interest rates were bound to go up, and including the Reserve Bank hinting at it on several occasions. It never happened. It's not guaranteed. If we can have productivity increases in the economy, that can pay for wage pressures in different parts of the economy, and the good thing is that a lot of the deregulation of the labour market has meant that wage increases in one area, which in some cases might be warranted, do not automatically flow, as they did in the years gone by, into every other area of the economy. That's why we've got to keep improving that flexibility in the labour market, so we can keep productivity increases going, and we keep downward pressure on interest rates. MAXINE McKEW: Lindsay Tanner, would you agree with that? Clearly it's a point that the Treasurer has been making, that wage rises have to be offset by productivity increases. LINDSAY TANNER: Look, the wage rises you referred to actually cover only a very small number of workers, and they tend not to flow through the work force as they have in the past. The primary pressure on interest rates is coming from the massive spending spree that the Howard Government set off in the Budget last year and continued during the election campaign; an effective increase of 1.5 per cent of GDP being pumped into an economy that's already ticking along at a pretty strong growth rate. So I think if you were looking about concerns about interest rates, the biggest concern is the government itself, its desire to get re-elected and to throw money around at every conceivable interest group all around Australia, as you've seen with this regional grants program. That's the real source of pressure on rates. But there are other factors that suggest that the Reserve Bank would be wrong to increase rates at present. Retail sales are dropping; the housing market's clearly cooled, and projections for global growth are significantly lower than they have been over the past year or so. So I don't believe there's a case for raising rates, certainly not on the basis of one month's labour market figures; they go up and down all over the place. But if there's a problem, it's the Howard Government itself with its profligacy of spending. MAXINE McKEW: Andrew Robb, what of that point? ANDREW ROBB: It's a cute political point, but the fact of the matter is, we're running surpluses of a record nature. We are putting - we're putting no pressure on savings... LINDSAY TANNER: And record taxes as well. ANDREW ROBB: We've got record surpluses, and the government is putting no pressure, in my view, no serious pressure, on monetary policy, because of the surpluses, because it is saving - we're putting money into a future fund; we're putting it away. This compares with when we took over. There'd been a $15 billion deficit in '95 and $10 billion the year after. That's the difference. MAXINE McKEW: Let me ask you this: is it remotely defensible, when the government, as it did last year, put $77 million into safe seats? I mean, if Labor had done that when they were in government, you'd be all over them. ANDREW ROBB: What do you mean, in terms of... MAXINE McKEW: $77 million in the Regional Partnerships Program went into safe government seats. ANDREW ROBB: That is highly defensible. I mean, those grants are there to provide assistance and support for all sorts of local community activities. MAXINE McKEW: And there's no problem in a much smaller amount having only gone to Labor seats? ANDREW ROBB: No, these went across - these went across the economy. There were more Labor marginal seats which received funds than coalition marginal seats. So these things were done on their merit, and they have been spread across the economy, and in terms of the total government Budget - we were running an $800 billion economy - this is an infinitesimal amount, and it's money well spent. It's money that goes into local community organisations who work very hard to provide the facilities and the services to keep their local communities going, and these sorts of funds recognise the significance of community groups across the country. They're a good thing, and the denigration of this is just cheap politics. LINDSAY TANNER: Maxine, quite the contrary. The real scandal with this regional grants program is that it is one small component of a vast pile of squandering of taxpayers' money that's gone on since the Howard Government got into office. Huge amounts of money have been frittered away across the country on these petty little grants all around the place at a time when our infrastructure's deteriorating, when we've got skill shortages, when broadband, which is going to be critical to our future economy, is languishing. The key determinants of future prosperity are being left lamenting while vast sums are being squandered. We're effectively frittering away all of the proceeds of prosperity on these things for political purposes. We've got halls of fame scattered around the country being funded by the Federal Government. We've got the Federal Government funding the dredging of an obscure creek - all sorts of things like this that are basically the province of local government or the States. MAXINE McKEW: Just on that point: Labor spent a lot of time exploring this Tumbi Creek issue this week, but I mean, the political result of the Opposition efforts are that a ministerial staffer has been counselled - hardly a king-hit against the government. LINDSAY TANNER: But you've ultimately got to look at the merit of the issue, Maxine, and this issue is by no means over. The real scandal here is the massive amount of dollars wasted by the Howard Government. The Centenary of Federation Fund was a giant slush fund; Networking the Nation in my old portfolio of Communications - half a billion dollars of communications money just squandered all around the country; the Natural Heritage Trust, with all these piddling little grants. It is grossly economically inefficient, and for these people in the Liberal Party who are setting up this ginger group about taxes, the first thing they should do, if they're serious about lower taxes, is start forgoing some of these ridiculous little grants in their own electorates, which are there to help get them re-elected, and instead focus their attention on reducing government spending. That's the real problem, is that you are seeing vast amounts of money, lots of little grants, but they all add up. This is just one of many of these programs we've seen over the years, and it's about time somebody put a stop to it. ANDREW ROBB: This is just gross misrepresentation - I mean, it's good political rhetoric, but the fact is, the Howard Government has record spending on roads, record spending on health, record spending on education - all of the major areas in which we need to keep doing more, and we will if we can generate surpluses and keep the economy going the way that it is. These grants that have been attempted to be highlighted are, by comparison, infinitesimal. They are very small grants which, in large part, recognise the activities of a lot of people at local areas. I would like Lindsay to go down to the local bowling club and say the microwave they got is a gross waste of expenditure; that the scoreboard at some of the football grounds - the fundamental things that make our society work and help community groups maintain their enthusiasm and their resolve to keep doing what they're doing - it's a very small part of government, but it pales alongside the massive and... MAXINE McKEW: Okay; we're not going to get agreement on that one tonight. LINDSAY TANNER: What do we have local councils and State Governments for? What do we have other levels of government for if we've got the Federal Government funding these sorts of things? It's ludicrous. It's a national government; it should be responsible for national things, not this sort of stuff. That's why you have local councils. ANDREW ROBB: It goes through local councils. MAXINE McKEW: Gentlemen, I just want to end on something entirely different, and that's which particular television jurisdiction should be showing the Ashes. I mean, what are cricket tragics like the Prime Minister and others supposed to do about making sure that, in fact, the Ashes is seen on free-to-air television? Lindsay? LINDSAY TANNER: Well, you can't force the commercial TV networks to cover something, cover a particular sporting event, and history shows that the coverage of the Ashes in England has been a little bit doubtful at times. I hope the ABC does end up covering it. But what this has exposed is a loophole in the anti-siphoning regime which has allowed Foxtel to get in there and effectively get pay TV rights even though the anti-siphoning regime is supposed to give the free-to-airs the first refusal for total exclusive rights. So there is a problem there. We were committed to fixing it when I was shadow Communications Minister. I'm sure that Steve Conroy has reiterated that. The government hasn't acted. There is a problem there. But we shouldn't assume that the commercial TV networks can be forced to cover a particular sporting event if they don't want to. MAXINE McKEW: Andrew, a quick response from you? We're very close to time. ANDREW ROBB: The fact is, the free-to-air rights are still there available to be purchased by the free-to-airs, including the ABC. Lindsay's right: government cannot dictate - we wouldn't compromise the independence of the ABC by dictating that they take the rights for the 2005 Ashes. But they're there and they're still available, and we can only hope that the free-to-airs, one of the free-to-airs, will see their way clear to take it up and show them. MAXINE McKEW: We'll wait and see what the resolution on this one is. Gentlemen, for your time and patience tonight, thank you very much indeed   Andrew Robb MP Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:512 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/513/Adjournment-Speech--Thailand.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=513 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=513&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/513/Adjournment-Speech--Thailand.aspx Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (12.55 p.m.) —Today I wish to extend my sincere sympathies to the people of Thailand for the great loss and the sadness they have suffered as a result of the Boxing Day tsunami. I also congratulate the Thai government and the Thai people on the professional, compassionate and effective way they have gone about dealing with this terrible disaster. I have had the good fortune over recent years to work closely with the Thai government and the Thai business community while assisting in investment and trade opportunities being undertaken by a range of Australian companies in Thailand. The Thai people have a rich culture. They are a very friendly, optimistic, energetic, enterprising and resilient people. This resilience and enterprise has been on display in the way they have dealt with the recent major crises, such as the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s and the devastation of the tsunami. As at 8 February, the death toll from the tsunami in Thailand stood at 5,400 people, with a further 3,000 missing. The worst affected areas are the Phang Na, Ranong, Trang, Phuket and Krabi provinces. These areas are also the key tourists areas in Thailand. At least 2,400 fishing boats have been destroyed, along with 6,000 houses, 50 schools, 19 government buildings and 54,000 farm animals killed. As with the Australian government, the response of the Thai government was immediate and comprehensive. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra led the grieving, the contact with victims and the recovery steps. He declined offers of international aid, other than technical assistance, such as victim identification, indicating that Thailand was in a position to take full responsibility itself for the recovery measures. To this end the Thai government has approved 28 billion baht, or over $US700 million, in assistance to the Thai people. This response reflects the growing and impressive performance of the Thai economy, with growth rates at over six per cent and poverty levels now under 10 per cent. I think their economic performance in the region, among Asian countries, is only second behind China. Thailand has been a long friend in the region and is an increasingly important partner. The growth rate of trade, both to and from Thailand and Australia, has been at an average annual rate of around 15 per cent for each year since 1985-86, with total trade in 2003 at over $7 billion. The free trade agreement signed last year between our two countries was the first free trade agreement Thailand had signed with a developed country and will turbocharge the trading relationship between our two countries and enhance our cultural links, which are growing by the day. Finally, I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on his stunning electoral victory last weekend. Prime Minister Thaksin is the first Thai Prime Minister to finish a full four-year term but also the first Thai Prime Minister to win a second successive term and his victory is testament to his outstanding economic leadership of Thailand. In doing so, the Thai Rak Thai party, led by Prime Minister Thaksin, increased its majority by nearly 100 seats, to 399 of the 500 seats in the parliament. In achieving this outstanding victory, 33 million voters, or 76 per cent of all eligible voters, turned out. This is up from 69.9 per cent in 2001 when the Thai Rak Thai party first won office. I would suggest that democracy is alive and well in Thailand, and it is a great thing to see. I commend the Thai people and the Thai government on their magnificent response to the tsunami and on their general progress—both economically and in other ways—and I look forward to helping to build on the strong relationship between our two countries.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:513 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/522/Question-without-Notice-Trade-Malaysia.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=522 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=522&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/522/Question-without-Notice-Trade-Malaysia.aspx Mr ROBB (2.05 p.m.) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the steps the government is taking to enhance Australia's economic relationship with Malaysia? Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. I have read his maiden speech, and I note that a considerable amount of it was devoted to the importance of trade to a nation like Australia, the ongoing economic building that has been taking place under this government and the need to maintain the focus on that. In a week when such significant events have taken place in our region, it is important to recognise the work that has been taking place on a bilateral basis with some of our key South-East Asian trading partners, of which Malaysia is a very important one. Over the years we have been building and strengthening the economic relationship with Malaysia. From 1986 to 1996, there was an ongoing officials dialogue, on an annual basis, on trade and economic matters. My predecessor, Tim Fischer, upgraded that to a joint ministerial commission, which has been conducted annually since 1996. In July this year, Minister Rafidah Aziz and I announced that Australia and Malaysia would conduct parallel scoping studies on a possible free trade agreement. That will be concluded in early 2005 and will hopefully lead to negotiations between our two countries. [start page 70] Malaysia is our 10th largest trading partner. Two-way trade between our countries stands at $8.6 billion, with merchandise trade at $6.9 billion and services trade at $1.7 billion. An FTA would build on the already strong links that exist between Australia and Malaysia across a broad range of areas, including education, defence, security and tourism. Clearly, there would be many opportunities for Australian exporters if we were able to open up the market further and remove impediments to accessing that market. There would be opportunities in areas such as agriculture from the reduction or elimination of tariff barriers. There would be opportunities in the all-important services sector if education institutions and legal firms could get better access to that market and build on the already 20,000 strong Malaysian student population attending Australian universities today. That is a very important link that has been built over the years between our two countries. Then there are the all-important investment flows that take place between our two countries. It is worth reflecting on how much the economic relationship has grown over the last 10 years. In 1993, the year of Prime Minister Keating's infamous comment, two-way trade between Australia and Malaysia was worth $3.9 billion. This year, 2004, the year that Malaysia has welcomed Australia's participation in this year's ASEAN summit and reflected on our participation in next year's ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, two-way trade is worth $8.6 billion. In that period it has gone from $3.9 billion to $8.6 billion. That has all happened under a coalition government focused on developing and strengthening our relationship with our regional neighbours, and in particular with countries like Malaysia.   Andrew Robb MP Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:522 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/523/Question-without-Notice-Free-Trade-Agreement-with-China.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=73&ModuleID=389&ArticleID=523 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=523&PortalID=0&TabID=73 http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/Speeches/tabid/73/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/523/Question-without-Notice-Free-Trade-Agreement-with-China.aspx Mr ROBB (2.09 p.m.) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister please explain how a free trade agreement with China would benefit Australian farmers and businesses? [start page 3] Mr VAILE —I thank the honourable member for Goldstein for his question. I congratulate him on his election to this place and recognise the hard work that the member for Goldstein has done in previous occupations in representing and improving the circumstances for particularly Australia's agricultural community in the export markets of the world. He recognises the importance of opening up markets and improving access to markets across the world. Australia's trading relationship with China at the moment is in excellent shape. It has been growing rapidly over recent years. In fact, the total trade has trebled in value over the last five years to $27.3 billion. China is now Australia's second largest merchandise export market. Merchandise exports grew by 22 per cent over the last year, September quarter to September quarter. In the key areas of agriculture we do $2.2 billion worth of business. In the services sector it is $1.2 billion worth, which includes the tourism industry, where we had about 175,000 inbound tourists from China, and the all-important education sector, where Australian institutions are educating about 58,000 Chinese students. That is earning major export dollars for Australia. The mining and energy sector earns about $3.8 billion in exports to China, and this is before we start exporting LNG to China. Then there is the all-important manufacturing sector, which earns $1.8 billion. As members would know, we are aiming to conclude the feasibility study on a free trade agreement with China by the end of the first quarter next year. If that proceeds to negotiations and we negotiate an FTA with China, it would present us with opportunities to improve the access circumstances for those industries, like tariff barriers and quarantine protocols as far as our processed food products going out of Australia to China are concerned; better access for educational institutions, legal firms and telcos in the services sector; removal of tariff barriers and investment restrictions for the mining and resources sector; and, of course, the all-important manufacturing sector and looking after the intellectual property rights of some of our modern high-tech manufacturers. So it is important to note that if, on top of the work that we have done in South-East Asia, the work the Prime Minister is doing at the ASEAN meeting now, the agreements we negotiated with Singapore and Thailand and the agreement we hope to negotiate with Malaysia, we should go ahead and negotiate an agreement with China it would build on the already very strong economic relationship with China. Our agenda is about creating jobs and expanding Australia's export opportunities. We are a government that is about getting on with deepening our economic integration with our near neighbours in the Eastern Hemisphere.   Andrew Robb MP Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:523