Senator TROOD (Queensland) (5.02 p.m.)—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 pre-eminence? 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 well- and 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 long-time 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.