Is a serious debate on our approach to regional security possible?

I hope that between now and election day the major political parties might take the people of Australia into their confidence when it comes to managing our relations with our South Pacific neighbours, and addressing the seemingly unrelenting growth of China's influence.

For too long it has suited the convenience of both major parties to adopt a "bi-partisan" approach to foreign policy overall, and more specifically policy directly relating to our immediate national interest, managing relations with our South Pacific neighbours, and addressing China's growing and increasingly oppressive influence in our immediate region in particular.

 Any differences have really been at the margins. The Opposition's bi-partisan approach suits the government. But does it really suit the Australian national interest?

We should not be afraid of a robust and wide-ranging debate on our regional development assistance policies and programs, on seasonal worker programs and on trade and investment.

Even though it is hard to be confident that we will see a genuine debate, I am going to offer a few suggestions that might be considered for inclusion.

The first relates to the "status" of our regional relations, currently managed through the Minister for the Pacific and Development Assistance.

I guess it has been 35 years since direct responsibility was transferred to the Minister for the Pacific. Inevitably, this has increasingly diminished the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

My own view is that the situation is so strategically important today that responsibility ought to revert to the Foreign Minister, who enjoys cabinet status.

Some may think this is a minor issue, but that is not the view of many South Pacific, and wider Pacific, leaders. Their view is that Australia devalues its relations with its neighbours. I agree.

The Foreign Minister ought to visit our most important regional neighbours three or four times a year, and invite Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers to visit Australia on a regular basis.

I have noticed that whenever China engages in dialogue with our regional neighbours it does so through via President Xi, or the Premier or Foreign Minister.

It is not hard to believe this attention does not go unnoticed in our region. It is powerful and effective.

The second proposal I will advance is one I have written about in the past.

Australia is easily the most generous provider of development assistance (aid) to our region. The largest share goes to Papua New Guinea, but increasingly assistance is being given to other regional neighbours such as Fiji and even the Solomon Islands.

It surely makes sense to have the Office of the Pacific - which manages our various programs in the region - located as close as possible to the region.

It would not be hard to locate it closer to our neighbours than its current location - Canberra!!

It would make sense to locate the Office of the Pacific in Cairns. But a case can be made for Townsville or Brisbane.

Is it too much to expect the idea is at least worth serious examination?

My final suggestion relates to links between our National Parliament and the Parliaments of the South Pacific. Parliamentary democracy in our region is under constant challenge. Now is the time to look at how our Parliament, and even state parliaments, can mentor regional parliaments and parliamentarians.

This is a suggestion that would need to be discussed with our neighbours - but I am confident the response would be positive.

It is also a policy idea the Chinese dictatorship would struggle to match!

In an election campaign in which billions are being promised, the sum total of these proposals would barely touch the sides.

But they might make a real difference!