 |
Russell Trood, Senator for Queensland
First Speech - 16/08/2005
Senator TROOD (Queensland) (5.02
pm)—Mr President, last year’s federal election
produced a remarkable electoral trinity.
For the first time since Menzies’ success in
1955 a Liberal Prime Minister secured a
fourth consecutive term of office. Second, it
was the first time since 1980 and, more importantly,
since the Senate was expanded in
1984 that any government had been able to
secure a majority in both houses of the parliament.
Third, it was the first time in a half
Senate election that the Liberal Party of
Queensland was able to secure the return of
three senators.
Queenslanders made an impressive contribution
to the first and second of these successes
and, of course, were wholly responsible
for the third. One consequence of this
success is that Queenslanders now outnumber
Victorians in the Liberal party room. Although
I was born in Melbourne, I record
this historic development with considerable
delight and satisfaction.
Much attention has been given to the apparently
dire consequences which will almost
certainly follow from the government’s
new Senate majority. For some, it seems,
democracy has come to an inglorious end. I
very much doubt whether the poet John
O’Brien had the Senate in mind when he had
Hanrahan proclaim, ‘We’ll all be rooned,’
but for many it seems that farmer’s despair
has a modern resonance. In truth, the new
Senate keeps faith with a profoundly significant
constitutional idea: namely, that at the
heart of Australia’s parliamentary system
there should exist a strong, democratically
elected upper house. As Dr John Quick remarked
at the 1897 Federal Convention, ‘We
are creating a Senate that will feel the sap of
popular election in its veins.’ At the time, this
was a bold experiment in constitutional design and, for over a century, it has been an
enduring source of the Senate’s political legitimacy.
I imagine all of us who sit here today are
very conscious of those strong democratic
instincts. For my part, I feel a special connection
with that tradition. My great grandfather,
Sir Arthur Rutledge, was a founding
father. He was a strong advocate of Federation
and a very proud member of the Queensland
delegation to the 1891 Constitutional
Convention in Sydney. As a Samuel Griffith
Liberal, he would have been delighted with
the results of the 2004 election and would
have thought the outcome wholly consistent
with the founders’ constitutional design.
Several generations on, I feel very privileged
to come here as a representative of the
people of Queensland. I am conscious they
have sent me to our national parliament;
from my perspective, I sit here, alongside my
Queensland colleagues, entrusted with a national
responsibility: to help govern for all
Australians, not just those in our state. I aim
to do this conscientiously: first, in a way that
reflects the political philosophy and principles
of my own great party and, second, conscious
that the Senate has always been most
faithful to its constitutional design when it
acts as a house of review, ensuring the accountability
of the executive arm of government.
The new Senate assembles with a crowded
policy agenda in a changing world. Change,
of course, is an enduring part of life. But
today its speed can be disorienting. We
struggle to define its dimensions. Is ours the
age of terrorism or, perhaps, emancipation?
Is it, perhaps, the age of American preeminence?
It is all these things, but, more
comprehensively, ours is the era of globalisation:
we live in the first truly global age in
human history. For many, globalisation is a
policy, an enterprise to be encouraged or disparaged,
according to preference. For me, it
is the phenomenon of our times. We might
ease its impact, confront its sometimes troubling
consequences and take advantage of its
opportunities but, like the Industrial Revolution,
we cannot easily change its course. We
are bound to deal with its reality.
To invoke Antonio Gramsci, there are
‘morbid symptoms’ of globalisation, but
more often than not we are forced to confront
its paradoxes: a world where major
interstate war may be in decline but new
threats and insecurities proliferate; a place
where we can create wealth and prosperity
but amid terrible poverty. Above all, a globalised
world is one of interdependence,
where countries and communities are increasingly
interconnected. This does not
mean the end of the nation state, but it does
mean that the distinction between foreign
and domestic policy is disappearing. Our
borders are more porous—more open to
people, goods and ideas but also to crime,
pests and disease.
These realities confront us with immense
challenges. We could have no better servant
in seeking to overcome them than a welland
broadly-educated population. In a globalised
world, military power is still important.
But a strong education system, a capacity
for technological innovation and a strong
research culture in our universities are surely
the new foundations of wealth. Ideas and
education matter, not just for the prosperity
they promise but because free and open societies
depend on them.
I am fortunate to have received a good and
some might even say excessive university
education on three continents. Not surprisingly,
perhaps, I am deeply committed to
Australia’s higher education system having
the resources it needs to meet the national
and international challenges it now confronts.
But I also know that we cannot neglect the technical and vocational sector of
post-secondary education. In this context I
applaud the Howard government’s substantial
commitment of resources to new technical
colleges. We now need to encourage their
use within those parts of our community and
in the high schools where the culture of university
preference is so deeply entrenched.
We must change this for the sake of those of
our children for whom university is neither
an ambition nor an option.
If education is our future, open markets
are one of the modern realities of globalisation.
Some say this is an anathema. I am one
who regards them as critical to generating
wealth and prosperity. Still, I know that Australia’s
embrace of free trade has caused pain
to some Australians, many in my own state
of Queensland. When coupled with crippling
drought, low prices for some commodities
such as sugar, farm consolidation, new environmental
laws and much else, people in our
regions have been suffering. Regional and
remote Australia is also feeling the effects of
people moving to more populated areas with
better infrastructure, services and jobs.
Country towns in western Queensland have
been seriously affected.
My conviction is that we need to revisit
the task of regional and rural development.
In recent years the Howard government has
done much to ease the burdens of regional
Australians. But I believe we should strive to
develop a more comprehensive, integrated,
longer term approach to the problem of regional
development. Our aim should be to
build an economically viable, environmentally
sustainable and socially secure future
for the people in regional and rural Australia.
This is a challenge I am very happy to take
up.
Australia has never sought to isolate itself
from the realities of the international environment.
We have always believed—
correctly, in my view—that our interests are
best served by seeking to play an active and
constructive role in world affairs. And, today
more than ever, globalisation demands engagement.
We should assume this burden
with confidence. Certainly, the world beyond
is sometimes hostile to our interests and, of
course, there are constraints on our capacity
to act. But Australia has been remarkably
successful in drawing on the character and
resilience of its people to confront sometimes
enormous challenges. We do not go
abroad with missionary zeal. Our way, in that
memorable phrase of JDB Miller, one of our
most eminent foreign affairs academics, is
that of ‘a dogged, low-gear idealism’.
In foreign policy we have always been
most successful, our capacity for international
leadership most evident and our international
standing at its highest when we have
drawn on our enduring strengths. These have
emerged over a century. The essence of this
tradition is clear: strong but not uncritical
support for allies, robust bilateralism, a willingness
to use military force when strategic
necessity demands it, a respect for international
law, an instinct for problem solving
and a commitment to effective and creative
multilateralism. I characterise this tradition
as ‘middle-power realism’, and its elements
remain relevant today. As the Howard government’s
foreign policy demonstrates,
adapted to contemporary circumstance it
offers a reliable compass by which to navigate
the sometimes treacherous waters of
global politics.
Traditions are important, but there is a
need to renovate. We can always do more. To
this end, I would encourage the government’s
attention to three possible reforms in
the area of foreign and defence policy: the
development of a national security strategy,
clearly articulated and regularly updated; the
creation of a national security council for
improved security planning and crisis management; and the allocation of more resources
to the Department of Foreign Affairs
and Trade. I believe these reforms will significantly
improve Australia’s ability to make
and conduct a strong national security policy.
Today two issues are at the forefront of
our international agenda. The first is international
terrorism. This constitutes a clear and
present threat not only to Australia’s way of
life but to freedom everywhere. The fanatics
who are determined to use terror cannot be
allowed to succeed. In a free society their
terror, their horror, can never have legitimacy.
It is to be condemned utterly as a
means of political action. So should their
vision for our future.
Ending terrorism will be a long-term
struggle. It demands action both at home and
abroad. Internationally, massive military
power is likely to be of less value than cooperative
diplomacy, collaborative policing and
coalitions to secure reliable and timely intelligence.
But the challenges in this struggle
are not just abroad. It now tests our rights
and obligations as citizens. We will need to
balance the protection of our civil liberties
against the need for greater security. Most
Australians will tolerate more restrictions
made in the name of security. But in a common-
law country such as Australia parliament
has a responsibility to guard and protect
the people against excesses of power.
Whatever we do in the Senate to give the
government the power it justly needs to fight
terrorism, we would be wise to give it very
close scrutiny and be wary of conceding
power permanently or without continuing
parliamentary oversight.
The second international challenge is that
of Iraq. This has been a divisive issue in our
society, though in my view our path should
be clear. I recall that on the day the conflict
began in March 2003 I wrote, in one of our
better national dailies, that I believed the task
of securing the stability of Iraq would be a
problematic endeavour, politically difficult
and financially expensive. Any number of
threats and dangers, I suggested, could easily
sink freedom’s grand enterprise. It gives me
little satisfaction to now reflect on the accuracy
of my prediction.
But we are now two years on and we are
obliged to confront the reality of the present
situation, and that to my mind is straightforward.
The Iraqi people are confronting a brutal
and bloody insurgency. It is orchestrated
by a repressive fundamentalist coalition of
locals and outsiders and is costing the lives
of many innocent people. The majority Iraqi
aspiration for a free, peaceful and prosperous
future is being denied by a bloody campaign
of terror. No country, no people should be
subjected to such excruciating pain, least of
all Iraq, which has already endured so much
under Saddam. It is not in our interests to see
this campaign of terror succeed. Once again
the Iraqi people would be forced to live in a
state of subjugation. Democracy’s prospects
in the Middle East would be set back. Terror
would be given a valuable victory. America’s
will to engage abroad would likely be
shaken. None of these things could possibly
be of benefit to Australia. I support our continuing
commitment to the people of Iraq.
We should remain until our mission has been
completed or we are asked to leave. Credible
security policy demands no less.
Within the context of a rapidly changing
world, no region is more important to Australia’s
long-term future security and prosperity
than East Asia. Queensland’s already
well-established ties with the region in areas
such as trade, education and professional
services testifies to this modern reality. As
my academic career testifies, I am a longtime
enthusiast for Australia’s closer engagement
with the region. I am also very
proud of my party’s distinguished record of
progress towards this goal. It is a record that
reaches back to the very earliest stages of
Australia’s foreign policy before the Second
World War. It finds a contemporary resonance
in the recent decision to sign
ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
and thus secure a place at the new East Asian
summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur in December
2005.
That summit could well be the most important
geostrategic development in East
Asia since the end of the Second World War.
It is yet another sign that our relations with
East Asia are entering a new phase. In the
coming decades, China’s rise is likely to
overshadow all other events in the region.
This will not only facilitate East Asia’s progress
to being the dynamic centre of an increasingly
interdependent global economy
but also reshape the foundations of the region’s
political order. My guess is that this
will present us with as many challenges as
opportunities. My conviction is that we
should face them with confidence—not, as
sometimes in the past, with the mendicant
mentality of a people transplanted from their
European roots and desperate to discover an
identity but rather as Australians, clear-eyed
about our national interests and confident
that those interests are inextricably fused
with the region’s future.
The tenor and texture of our relations with
the region’s great powers will shape much of
our regional destiny. None is likely to be
more central than China. Here we should
aspire to an increasingly constructive relationship
across the full range of our political,
economic and strategic interests. It should,
however, be tempered by the reality that
China is a great power on the rise—one
whose political ideology we do not share,
whose regional aspirations will cause a profound
shift in the geopolitical landscape and
whose relations with our great ally the
United States could well shift between amity
and tension. Australia’s relationship with
Japan has now moved well beyond trade and
is among our closest in the region. We should
look to expand on existing areas of cooperation
and grasp the opportunity for the closer
strategic partnership now being offered.
In South-East Asia no country is more important
to Australia than Indonesia. Senators
will perhaps not be surprised to learn that, as
a former member of the board of the Australia-
Indonesia Institute, I regard closer ties
between our two countries as being of the
utmost importance. Our relations with Indonesia
will often be a challenge to manage
successfully. Even so, a healthy, expanding,
cooperative relationship is strongly in both
countries’ interests, and I trust both sides will
remain committed to that objective. In South
Asia, we have for too long ignored the importance
of developing a closer relationship
with India. Our broad range of shared interests
is self-evidently much greater than just
cricket. The rapid growth in India’s market
economy, the connection via the Commonwealth
and our now common membership of
the East Asia summit are just three of many
compelling reasons to work harder at deepening
our bilateral ties.
Engagement with Asia will be easier if we
give it national priority. Shared interests do
not absolve us from having continually to
make our case to the countries of the region.
They do not absolve us of being mindful of
the values of Asian societies and their cultures,
of being knowledgeable about the burdens
of their history or of being able to speak
their languages. As the distinguished Asian
academic Wang Gungwu remarked in 1992:
There is more work for Australians to do to enable
Asians to see them as they should.
It is doubtless also the case that Asians have
more work to do as well.
Mr President, it is an enormous privilege
to have been elected to the Senate. I am one
of only 512 people since Federation and one
of only 80 Queenslanders to have been given
this signal honour. I would not be here without
the strong support of the members, and
especially my close friends, within the
Queensland Liberals. I thank them most sincerely.
But the burden of my candidacy for
the Senate has been borne by my family: my
wife Dale and my children James and
Phoebe, all of whom are here in the gallery
tonight. They, more than any, have made the
sacrifices that have given me the opportunity
to serve. I am enormously grateful.
In closing, I once again thank Queenslanders
most sincerely for sending me here.
I am looking forward enormously to working
for them in the national interest. I thank the
Senate for its attention.
|
 |
