E&OE
4 February 2008
Lateline interview
Subjects: Mitsubishi, foreign investment, foreign policy
TONY JONES: Now to our interview with Australia's new Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, who hit the ground running when he took on his new portfolio, visiting the US and Japan just last week, arguably Australia's two most important allies.
Well, Stephen Smith joins us tonight in our Canberra studio. Thanks for being there.
STEPHEN SMITH: Pleasure, Tony, how are you?
TONY JONES: I'm very well, thanks, and we should say congratulations. We haven't seen you since election night and it's a big - were you surprised, by the way, to get this portfolio?
STEPHEN SMITH: I was - but very pleased, very pleased with the election win, very pleased to predict it on ABC TV on the night and very pleased to be in the portfolio.
TONY JONES: Not so pleased, no doubt, to hear intense speculation tonight that Mitsubishi may be about to announce the closure of its Adelaide plant. Did you get any hint of this at all when you were in Tokyo?
STEPHEN SMITH: No, Mitsubishi wasn't raised with me in the conversations that I was having but that would be no surprise but I understand that my colleague, Senator Carr, the Industry Minister, has spoken to Mitsubishi this evening both in Japan and the CEO in Australia and received assurances that no decision has been made, has indicated that if Mitsubishi need any further information for their meeting tomorrow, he'll happily provide it. But other than that, we simply await the decision tomorrow and reinforce or underline the point that the 1000 or so workers in South Australia have to be uppermost in the minds of Mitsubishi. They're certainly uppermost in the minds of Senator Carr and the Government.
TONY JONES: Did Mr Carr - did Senator Carr, I should say, did he actually get the impression, talking to the president of Mitsubishi that the future of the plant is up for grabs?
STEPHEN SMITH: I don't know, Tony. All I know is that there were wire reports some time this evening suggesting that a decision had been made. My understanding is that Senator Carr contacted Mitsubishi both here and in Japan, has received assurances that no decision has been made but there is a meeting tomorrow and I think the expectation is – this is not within my direct knowledge but I think the expectation is – the decision about the plant is on the list for that meeting tomorrow.
TONY JONES: Premier Rann directly told the company's president evidently that large amounts of state and federal money and support had been poured in to keep this company afloat in Adelaide and the quid pro quo was meant to be they would remain until at least the end of 2010. Would that be a sort of broken agreement and would you be disturbed by that if, for example, a decision was taken tomorrow?
STEPHEN SMITH: Let me make this point. Firstly, the details are obviously a matter for Senator Carr, my colleague and Industry Minister. That's the first point.
Secondly, of course the Government, as South Australians, as Australians, would prefer that the plant remained open and that's been, I think, the view of the Australian Labor Party in Opposition and now in Government, just as it was the view of our predecessor, that we would obviously prefer, for the sake of the car industry in Australia and for the sake of the workers in South Australia, that the plant remained open. Ultimately that will be a commercial decision for the company to make but it's true that the State of South Australia and the Commonwealth itself has provided support over a long period of time to the car industry generally in an endeavour to have a public policy framework in place to make the presence of the car industry, including Mitsubishi, attractive into the long term in Australia.
Ultimately it will be a decision for the company to make.
TONY JONES: All right. Let's move on. You'll be meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister tomorrow. This is part of - Mr Yang - part of new strategic dialogue with China. What is at the top of the list of the topics you'll be dealing with?
STEPHEN SMITH: Certainly. Well, firstly, it's my first meeting with Foreign Minister Yang and that will be both a standard bilateral but also it will be the first of the strategic dialogues or strategic discussions between Australia and Japan.
And there will be two main things. Firstly there will be, just as a general bilateral conversation, me underlining the importance of the relationship that Australia has with China. We're now into our 36th year of our recognition of China. We have a very good relationship with China. Our economies now complement each other very, very well and we're looking forward, into the future, to a significant longstanding, enduring relationship with China. So I'll underline that point.
Secondly, one of the points I do want to make is that, of course, what occurs in north Asia is very important to Australia. In the course of this century, the presence of the United States, of China, of Japan, and India emerging – Australia has very good relationships with each of those nation states and the emergence in this century of India – which we've said we need to and want to have a stronger and better relationship with – and the emergence of China, we see north Asia as being very important to us.
And so I'll be underlining that strategic point as part of the strategic dialogue.
TONY JONES: Above all else, China is looking to secure minerals and energy markets to feed its booming economy. Part of that obviously is reflected in Chinalco's move on Rio Tinto but, of course, having a Chinese government owned company buying into large mineral resources in Australia has its own problems. So would the Government look kindly or unkindly at an attempt to take over large chunks of our own mineral resources?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, firstly, your point is right. We have a very good economic complementarity when it comes to our minerals and petroleum resources industry.
I mean, I know that very well, as someone who comes from Western Australia, whether it's iron ore, whether it's liquefied natural gas.
So, that relationship is very important to us, and, on top of our, Australia's, and Australian Labor's early recognition of China, it's that economic relationship which now sets the scene for the future.
So far as the investment that you've referred to is concerned in that particular case, as a general proposition Australia, of course, welcomes foreign investment.
One of the things that has kept Australia prosperous over the years has been by being an attractive place for overseas capital investment, and we encourage overseas capital investment, whether it's from China, whether it's from the United Kingdom, whether it's from the United States.
But, in terms of investment in Australia, capital investment in Australia, foreign investment in Australia, it's of course subject to the foreign investment rules and regulations.
That's a matter exclusively for the Treasurer, and he's indicated that that particular matter, if it falls for foreign investment review consideration, will be a matter for him and that's how it will be addressed and considered by the Government.
TONY JONES: Is it different in principle though when it's a Chinese Government owned corporation, that is not effectively a private corporation at all but one which takes its orders from the politburo?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, we don't want to be, if you like, making distinctions between the type of foreign investment.
What we do need to do is to make sure that the foreign investment which comes to Australia is in our national interest.
If an investment into Australia – if a foreign investment into Australia, whether it comes from China or from the United States or the United Kingdom or Japan or India, wherever it comes from – if the foreign investment legislation is triggered, then the key and ultimate decision making point is, is this investment in Australia's national interest?
And that's the decision and in this case it may well fall to the Treasurer, Mr Swan, to make a judgment about.
But that's the key thing. It's not where the investment comes from, it's whether the investment is in our national interest.
TONY JONES: Given Australia's close trading relationship with China, does that ultimately give us diplomatic leverage when new global warming agreements, with cuts and targets to CO2 emissions, are actually put in place - is that something we can leverage our relationship with China on?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well I'm not sure that leverage is the right description or the right analysis.
Certainly, I'll make it clear to Foreign Minister Yang that Australia very much sees working on climate change with China both in a bilateral sense, also within regional arrangements and multilateral arrangements – Australia sees working with China on climate change – as being very important.
Our Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, was recently at a meeting of major economies in Hawaii.
But we want to work cooperatively with China. We have the view that reducing emissions is very important, both for developed and developing economies.
But, just as I made the point in the United States and in Japan, that Australia wants to work cooperatively with the United States and Japan on climate change and effecting emissions cuts, so that is the case when it comes to China.
TONY JONES: Let me take you to foreign policy at a broader level.
Now, apart from the Iraq troop withdrawal, what will distinguish Labor's foreign policy from that of the previous government? How will it be different, and how fundamentally different will it be?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, the trip that I have just come back to Australia from was both New York, Washington, and Tokyo. And it really touched upon the three fundamental bases of Labor's foreign policy approach.
Firstly, our, our enduring alliance with the United States, as I made it clear in Washington – we regard that as being indispensable to our defence, security and strategic arrangements.
And I underlined that point publicly and privately in the United States.
Secondly, when I was in New York, I made a point of going to New York to make the point that Australia very much sees its own engagement in the United Nations, and the United Nations engagement in the world, as being much more of a priority than the previous government did. We believe in multilateralism; we want to make greater effort in the United Nations and see the United Nations play a more central role in the international community. And one of the particular points we are interested in is nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
Thirdly, my trip to Japan, which followed on before Christmas, going to Indonesia and East Timor with the Prime Minister; reflected the third pillar or the third fundamental of our foreign policy approach, which is engagement in the Asia Pacific region.
And again that's an area where we believe the previous government was lacking.
I wanted to make the point, both by going to Indonesia, and subsequently by going to East Timor, and more recently to Japan, that our engagement in the Asia Pacific is very important to us.
Japan has been, in very many respects, Australia's most consistent friend and supporter in the region for a long period of time. We have a very significant economic security and strategic relationship and partnership with Japan, and Japan has been very supportive of Australia in regional forums.
And I made that point to the Ministers I met in Japan; that we regarded that as being very, very important to our role in the region.
TONY JONES: Can I put it to you that very little of what you've just said, would really seriously distinguish you from the previous Government's foreign policy?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I'm not sure that's right. I mean you made the point about Iraq, and moved over it, but when it comes to Iraq, we had a qualitatively different approach from the previous Government. You'll recall that the previous Government and others were at pains to say that if we withdrew our troops, combat forces from Iraq, which we've announced, and which I've advised the United States Administration of, that the alliance would fall asunder. Well that's been proven to be a nonsense, which it always was. The alliance is enduring and transcends Governments in Australia or administrations in the United States.
The important thing is to make decisions that we regard as being in our own national interest, and that's what we've done so far as our Iraq decision was concerned, but we've done it in a way which will minimise disruption, we've done it in consultation not just with the United States, but also with the United Kingdom.
TONY JONES: Does Australia still believe in, and does it still support, a general doctrine of pre-emption in world affairs?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, our starting point, as I indicated to you in terms of the international community, is we'd like to see a much greater and prominent role for the United Nations. We see multilateralism and cooperation in the global community as being our starting point, and we've encouraged that of the United States, as we would encourage that of ourselves, so…
TONY JONES: So, just on this doctrine of pre-emption, you'll recall there was a huge debate on this, immediately after September 11, and prior to the war in Iraq, which is based on the doctrine of pre-emption. Is the doctrine of pre-emption now rejected by the Australian Government?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, it's not our starting point. It is not our starting point. Our starting point is one of co-operation, one of seeking to resolve differences or difficulties, either on a bilateral basis with another country, where we might have a difference, as we do, for example, with Japan on whaling, but also in the regional context and also in the multilateral context, where as I say, our starting point is the United Nations, it's not the only multilateral forum, or the only place where things can be discussed, but we do see a need for the United Nations to return centre stage to international and global affairs.
TONY JONES: That raises the point, if it's not the starting point, could it be the end point, could you still have a doctrine of pre-emption after you have some negotiations, for example?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, one of the things which is available to a nation state in international law is the right of self defence, and some people argue that from time to time, pre-emption qualifies as self defence.
Now I'm not going to get into an arcane international law argument, but the question of pre-emption has often been articulated or suggested as being part of a self-defence mechanism, and a nation state operating in self-defence is open to it in international law. When you merge that with pre-emption, it becomes very complicated and very difficult, which is why I say it's not our starting point.
TONY JONES: As part of the war on terrorism, Australia has significant troop presence in Afghanistan. Was there any discussion at all in Washington, on circumstances under which Australia would increase its troop presence in Afghanistan?
STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I've made it clear that we weren't contemplating an increase in our current complement. We've got about 1000 troops in Southern Afghanistan, in very difficult fighting conditions. What we are looking at, as I made clear in the United States, was that we are looking at what we can bring to Afghanistan, additional upon our combat or military presence, which goes to humanitarian assistance, to aid, and most importantly, to training and capacity building, to try and put the Afghanistani people in a position of being able to manage their own affairs.
But one of the things which I underline, and which I regard as being very important, is that when you look at Afghanistan now, you also have to look at Pakistan, firstly. And secondly, what we do need in Afghanistan is a much more significant commitment from the international community, both in terms of security and combat arrangements, to combat terrorism, and insurgency in Afghanistan, but also much more of a focus, and a bigger international community commitment for those…
TONY JONES: Yes, very briefly, very briefly, because we're nearly out of time, is there any…
STEPHEN SMITH: Sure.
TONY JONES: Are there any circumstances at all under which an Australian Labor Government would consider sending more troops to Afghanistan?
STEPHEN SMITH: We currently don't have that within contemplation, and I don't expect that we will. We've got a significant contribution there, it's very much appreciated by the United States, and by the Afghani Government. I think the key thing is to encourage greater international community commitment, particularly from NATO, in those defence and security arrangements, but also in the capacity-building arrangements, which will enable the Afghanistani people and Government to effectively manage its own affairs.
TONY JONES: Right, Stephen Smith, the first of many interviews, no doubt, in the time that you'll be in that position…
STEPHEN SMITH: I hope so, Tony.
TONY JONES: We thank you very much for joining us tonight.
STEPHEN SMITH: Thank you.
Ends
Media Inquiries: Foreign Minister's office (02) 6277 7500