Topics: Ukraine; PIF, EPA
04:20PM AEST
2 September 2024
Greg Jennett: We want to go to London now, Shadow Foreign Minister, Simon Birmingham’s there for talks with the UK Government after visits to Ukraine and other Eastern European nations in recent days. Simon Birmingham joins us live from a street somewhere, I guess, downtown, close to Westminster on a Monday morning there. Simon Birmingham welcome back to Afternoon Briefing. Look, you’ve left Ukraine, obviously, after calling for the reopening of the Australian Embassy in Kyiv and backing a further round of military donations by Australia. We probably won’t cover the breadth of all your conversations there, but it is fairly obvious that Ukrainian forces are seeking to strike Russian forces in Russia using donated longer-range missiles that currently aren’t meant to be fired into Russia. Should that be lifted, in your view, in line with Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s desire?
Simon Birmingham: Well, good morning to you, to Australians from here, and good afternoon I guess, as well, Greg. So, yes, it should be lifted. Ukraine should be able to use the resources provided to them to win this war. And to win this war and to defend themselves there is obvious logic in them being able to attack and strike at sites from which Russia launches attacks on Ukraine. That is a very logical thing, it’s quite customary, of course, in the way in which many nations would conduct operations when they are being attacked. And in this case, Ukraine is continuously being attacked by rockets and drones being launched by Russia, out of Russian military sites and if Ukraine can disable those Russian military sites, then those attacks will be limited, Ukraine’s ability then to be able to win this conflict, and in doing so, ensure that not only are they more secure in the future, but that all of us are a little bit safer because Ukraine’s victory will be one for a respect for borders, for sovereignty and for international rules as well.
Greg Jennett: Was it conveyed to you in your discussions with Ukrainian leaders that Australia has or hasn’t been active in its diplomatic support for the very arrangements you’re advocating here?
Simon Birmingham: Greg, obviously the decisions there, those restrictions that are put in place are by the relevant donor countries for those particular pieces of equipment, those missiles and military hardware that Ukraine has been provided with. So they’re not Australian restrictions in place. But I do think Australia should be clear in our messaging and support, as the European Union President is, as many other heads of nations are – that US, Germany, others, should give Ukraine the rules and tools to be able to succeed. That there shouldn’t be a case of arming them, but keeping one hand tied behind their back. It should be a case of arming and equipping them for victory. The Ukrainians have shown enormous resilience and resolve in a war that is now in its third year. Many, at the outset, thought they wouldn’t last three weeks. But indeed, they have lasted into their third year. They have successfully defended, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of Ukrainian territory. But clearly, Russia has made incursions. Ukraine has strategically made its own incursion now into Russia and the best way to get a just, lasting and comprehensive peace is for Ukraine to be in the strongest possible position when it comes to those peace talks.
Greg Jennett: And can I ask you about industrial and civilian suffering which is ongoing in Ukraine after attacks on its electricity grid, they’ve been severely damaged by sustained bombardment now. Is there anything that the international community should be doing to repair or secure generation and distribution before Winter that isn’t already being done? Was that case made to you?
Simon Birmingham: Well, Greg, firstly, let me just paint the contrast there. Ukraine wants to be able to use missiles and weaponry to attack Russian military targets – the bases and sites from which missiles are launched. And yet Ukraine faces Russia launching from those sites to attack civilian targets like energy infrastructure and things that don’t just go to Ukraine’s ability to fight the war, but of course, broadly harm the Ukrainian economy and civilian population. There is definitely a desire to see that work rebuilt. It was amazing to see some of the infrastructure that has already been rebuilt. Bridges that were destroyed earlier in the war that Ukraine has now re-established and rebuilt to provide critical infrastructure and connectivity between parts of their communities and it shows just how determined they are and capable to get on with these things. Australia’s role has been, when it comes to the energy space, one of providing, initially, shipments of coal. Our view is that that should have continued when Ukrainian requests were made. We welcome the fact that the Albanese Government’s giving some money but we think we can be more practical in our assistance. And whether that can lend also to reconstruction efforts in civilian infrastructure is certainly something we should be open to joining those types of partnerships on.
Greg Jennett: All right, we’ll take that up with the Australian Government when we get the opportunity, Simon. Look I do want to bring you back to a domestic political question on the way from where you are, though. I’ll just make a swing via the Pacific Islands Forum that was held in Tonga ended last week and it did seem to be marred by some sort of administrative error by the PIF at the end of that summit that eventually saw the release of a communique with no reference to Taiwan as a development partner. Of course, you weren’t there, you were literally half a world away. But are you comfortable in what you’ve been able to glean from afar that this was not the product of post-meeting pressure somehow applied by Chinese representatives?
Simon Birmingham: Look, it’s not clear precisely how this unfolded. The fact that it did unfold the way it did is terribly unfortunate, and we saw a change in that communique that means it is less reflective of reality. The reality is that Taiwan is a development partner in the Pacific and it is a welcome development partner in the Pacific who has been there a long time and should continue to be there a long time. That in no way detracts from the important role that the People’s Republic of China can play in the region as well, and their partnership status is one that is also important. But the fact that we went through this exercise that saw Taiwan expunged is reflective of the type of pressure, unfortunately, that Beijing puts in too many instances to try to contain or to limit or to whitewash Taiwan’s contribution in the region and globally. But that contribution should not be whitewashed or erased. It should be recognised and the opportunity was there for it to be recognised and it’s unfortunate that whether it was pressure or whether it was tacit pressure that people knew would come, that it saw them yield to it and change that communique that was nothing more than a statement of fact in reality.
Greg Jennett: China’s representative, as you know, was most unhappy at an earlier draft that he had seen and look, as I indicated, Simon Birmingham, something you might confront in the Senate next week, the Prime Minister has indicated to the West Australian newspaper that a revamp of the so called nature positive laws is under further consultation negotiation, I guess with the Coalition. Many environment groups are unhappy with turning it into what’s called a compliance-only agency. Can you confirm that this is something the Coalition is supporting?
Simon Birmingham: No Greg. Certainly, we will continue where it’s appropriate to engage in constructive discussions and negotiations. The way in which the Government’s been handling environmental approvals has been deeply concerning. We saw the recent rejection of a significant mine proposal that has heightened huge concern across the resources sector – the jobs dependent upon that and of course our economy and national income so heavily dependent upon that. And so, there are deep concerns within our ranks, but also in many stakeholders, about the way the Government is handling those approvals processes. We will look constructively though at any and all proposals to ensure that if something is to pass the parliament it is something that that meets the tests of not making a bad and difficult situation worse, but actually is going to be a constructive addition or approach in the way in which our environmental laws operate.
Greg Jennett: We’ll stay in touch with your team, including perhaps Jono Duniam back here in Australia, awaiting your return to Canberra Simon Birmingham – the day is young there. We’ll wrap it up and thank you once again for joining.
Simon Birmingham: Thank you very much, Greg.
[ENDS]