Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 1.26k
373k
| country
stringclasses 3
values | year
int64 2k
2.02k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|
As a member of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I wish to inform the House of the committee's review of the audit report No. 33 of 1996-97 on the administration of the Family Court of Australia. I particularly wish to comment on the effect that frequent review processes have on the delivery of services by the court. It is a fact that the business of the Family Court of Australia directly impacts upon approximately 100,000 adults and about 150,000 children per year. The core of the court's business is processing applications for dissolution of marriage and the resolution of related matters, including property settlements
and custody of children. All of these issues are very personally sensitive ones for individuals involved and, largely because of this, the court's operations have been subject to unusually intense scrutiny in the 21 years of its existence. Audit report No. 33 did not examine the legal functions of the court. To do so would be an infringement of the principle of the separation of powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary. The audit was confined to the examination of administrative matters, which nonetheless are a major element of the service provided by the court. It is right and proper that, in discharging our duty to provide good, open and transparent government, the operations of the Family Court are examined from time to time to assure the court's clientele and the general public that public funding spent in this area is used in a manner that maximises quality, efficiency and effectiveness of service provided by the court. In general, the audit resulted in a number of recommendations for finetuning in a managerial sense. These recommendations related to corporate planning, performance measurement, decision making processes, organisational structure, internal procedures and information technology. The House of Representatives Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs supports adoption of the recommendations. However,
I wish to draw attention to a concern expressed by the court's representatives which is shared by the committee. The large number of frequent investigations into the Family Court's operations has had the effect of diverting resources away from the court's key functions and compromising its ability to provide a high level of service. In the financial year 1996-97, the Family Court was subject to 18 internal and external reviews, excluding audit reviews. Although individual investigations may be well intentioned, such a high rate of review must raise a question of the cost benefits involved. The benefits of reviews and audits are that some constructive recommendations can be made, such as those previously mentioned in respect of audit report No. 33 of 1996-97. But large numbers of specific inquiries, limited in their terms of reference, by their very nature take a less than wide-angled view of the overall picture. What can result is a situation where it becomes difficult to see the wood for the trees. The House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has observed, for example, that an audit can fail to make due reference to major issues. It is these major issues that affect the ability of the court to fulfil its primary goal of producing desirable outcomes for clients. For example, the major issue of trialling integrated client services at the Parramatta Registry to limit the number of attendances of clients at court and the question of the most appropriate location of the primary dispute resolution services received only a brief acknowledgment in the audit process. The question then arises as to what is the most effective way of addressing both the routine procedural issues and the broader strategic direction to provide the highest standard of accountability for the functions of the court, and indeed other public institutions. Devolving responsibility does not mean that the government's responsibility for control has to be subverted. Management is still accountable for decisions and actions, must submit to routine audit procedures and should not be immune to prudent inquiry. In addition to the questionable benefits of frequent review
procedures, there are considerable financial costs and significant costs to service provision when large amounts of time and human resources are diverted to satisfying each review process. Furthermore, the insecurity experienced by staff is not conducive to the efficient provision of the best quality service. It is the committee's view that a balance between accountability through bureaucratic intervention and autonomous operation has not been maintained in recent years. There has been an overworking of the former at the cost of the latter and the balance needs to be re-struck. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I am pleased to speak on the Auditor-General's audit report No. 33 of 1996-97 on the administration of the Family Court of Australia. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Grace), has mentioned, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee did some good work in its review of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 33, which is one of two arising from the inquiry into the funding and administration of the Family Court. It is a matter of regret to me that there has been no report of this parliament which really looks at the issue of contact and brings forward recommendations that would provide satisfaction to both parents. I think that is a very glaring omission from this parliament. I note that the chief executive of the Family Court has drawn attention to the number of inquiries into the Family Court, particularly its administration. Mr Glare deserves some commendation in that he has survived each and every inquiry, but I believe that, as the Family Court moves further away from the original principles established in family law some 20 years ago, we are going to see this constant call for inquiries. I have been involved in one of the inquiries but, unhappily, not the review of this audit. There was also an earlier parliamentary inquiry chaired by Senator Jim McKiernan. Without disputing the good work done by the various committees, I do believe that we have lacked a clarity of focus about what really needs to be done to change it. The most glaring statistic has already been mentioned:
100,000 parents approach the court each year, and this involves 150,000 children. Therein lies the biggest problem associated with the Family Court, and that is that we actually need to remove people from the court process. In the past I have spoken about a no-frills family tribunal, and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has talked about a commission of the family. In Western Australia, because it still has its own court, we have the opportunity to trial a new tribunal in family law matters which is based on the Guardianship Board, the Small Claims Tribunal and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The hallmarks of these tribunals are that they are in very modest accommodation, they do not purport to be courts and there is no legal representation. The overwhelming majority of matters can be brought before the tribunal and both parties can have an opportunity to agree on those things that they can agree on but have a decision arbitrated. Without such a tribunal, I do not think we are ever going to get very close to solving the issues surrounding contact that bedevil the family law area. The tribunals are accessible, low cost and can be very immediate. I think there is a lot of merit in looking at that. In relation to counselling—and I know that the committee will be bringing down a report later on—one of the outstanding failures of the Family Court is the provision of reconciliation counselling, and this is in stark contrast to the New Zealand family court. In other words, it only provides counselling when the relationship or the marriage is dead. When you look at what the Commonwealth is spending on family law—something close to a quarter of a billion dollars—you see that we need to be spending money further up the relationship tree. There is no good in parents agreeing to seek counselling about their marriage or relationship and then having to wait three or four months before they can make the appointment. (Extension of time granted)A real test of success in the family law area involves a couple of things, and I do not think that either political party has come to family law in recent times with particularly clean hands. We need to provide a tribunal that
people can go to so that justice and their rights are not only there in theory but also able to be exercised. The Brandy case presents some difficulties but, happily, Western Australia allows for at least a pilot scheme to be undertaken, and I would commend that to the Attorney-General. I am very much in favour of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, but things like mediation are not always appropriate for every couple. I am certainly not seeking to abolish the court, but I do think we need to truncate its reach where it deals with those who want to slog it out with lots of money. Issues of sexual assault or domestic violence also need to be escalated into the Family Court very quickly. I am afraid for Mr Glare and the Family Court that while ever we fail to provide reasonable access to the court or mechanisms, there will be constant calls for inquiries. Last but not least, I am a firm advocate of lifting the lid on Family Court hearings. Section 121 of the Family Law Act provides for the Family Court—unlike any other court in this land apart from the Children's Court—absolute secrecy. We need to take that away. After all, it only serves to protect the wealthy, the prominent and, dare I say, the politicians in this country. It has had a disastrous effect on people's understanding of the court and its processes. I would urge all members of this House to support the removal of section 121, which requires that there be no publicity of Family Court proceedings. | Australia | 1,998 |
Once again I have listened very carefully to the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), who has just resumed his seat, and his experience and wisdom in this area are not to be gainsaid. We need to listen to the voices of those who are questioning the role of the Family Court and the role that it is taking in society, given the extraordinarily large number of litigants who come before it every year and the effect of the Family Court's judgments upon those litigants. There certainly is a need to open up the court. I believe that section 121 should be repealed. As I was thinking of making my remarks today, I was reminded of the decision
of Scott v. Scott in the House of Lords, which is the seminal decision on the fact that justice should be done in public. It is important, not only for the proper functioning of a court that it be done, but for the interests of justice. There should only be very exceptional circumstances before the doors are closed in relation to the administration of justice in any court. It is as well to recall the principles of the House of Lords in Scott v. Scott. The constant inquiries that are referred to by my friend who has just resumed his seat and others really beg the question: why is it that we have these constant inquiries? I believe it is because the Family Court is seen my many litigants to have failed in many respects. I refer to the fact that, while there are some very good, experienced, competent and diligent judges, unfortunately there are some within the structure that leave litigants somewhat gasping for breath. My experience both in legal practice and subsequently as a member highlights that fact. In my view, the court suffers from an inferiority complex. It lacks respect from the legal profession because it fails to properly respect itself. That is a real problem. I believe it arises from the cases that come before it where orders of the court are flagrantly breached and nothing happens to the person breaching those orders. I know from experience in the Supreme Court that a breach of Supreme Court orders is treated very seriously. People who breach those orders wilfully and flagrantly are dealt with severely, because the court must send a message to the community that its orders must be obeyed. For example, take the case of Sid Brown: he had an order from the Family Court in relation to contact with his child. His ex-wife had previously been convicted of attempted abduction of the young child, who was four years of age, and had been given a bond. Recently, in total disregard of the orders of the court, Mrs Brown moved house and changed her child's school. She moved about 100 kilometres away without notifying Mr Brown. Of course, by this stage after many appearances in the court, Mr Brown's funds were totally exhausted. He made an application for contempt. He came before the judicial
registrar, who said, `There are a number of options. I could send her to gaol, fine her, put her on community service or on a bond. But most probably I will do nothing.' That sows the seeds of contempt for the court from the community when the court cannot uphold its own processes, and a court will not earn the respect of the community until it does. The same thing occurs when there are delays in the court with judgments. In the same case Mr Brown had to wait eight months and 20 days to get a judgment in a custody hearing a couple of years ago. This was in relation to a young child, and it is scandalous. (Extension of time granted) That particular case involved a very young child and custody and the whole situation changed in that eight months. In fact, the application for custody was made two years prior to the judgment being given. When it comes to questions of status quo, how could you possibly say that Mr Brown had a fair hearing in that case? A constituent of mine, Mrs Meech, was defrauded on a property settlement and similarly had to wait six months after many letters to the particular judge, Mr Justice Underhill. He has now retired and the legal profession will not mourn his passing. He took six months to deliver a decision in relation to a case where assets were dissipated. The end result was that Mrs Meech, whose funds were likewise exhausted, ultimately lodged an appeal and a settlement was reached. There can be no respect for a system that accepts these sorts of delays. Why are there delays? Are there delays because allegations are made to the court and the courts are tied up in cases that really should not be there? As my friend the member for Chifley said, there are matters that should not be in the court; they should be somewhere else. There also has to be some combined disincentive for some people to make false allegations in relation to child abuse. Time and time again—and in the profession they call it the atomic bomb—the allegation of child abuse is made and immediately all rights of the father to see the child are suspended and the system is tied up. In the case of Garry
Parmenter, he has not seen his son for something approaching two years. The allegations have been found to be untrue and unsubstantiated, yet the system is still tied up investigating all this material. In this case there has been a suggestion by an expert of parroting in relation to the child, and the person making the allegation will just walk out of the court and there will be no disincentive. Indeed, the great playwright and barrister John Mortimer in a book, an autobiographical work, that he wrote not too many years ago said that, when he was practising in the family jurisdiction in the sixties and seventies, in contested divorce applications every conceivable allegation would be made from leaving a ring around the bath to leaving dirty socks lying around—all those sorts of things—but you would never hear an allegation of child abuse when, had it been present, it would have been a very, very serious allegation. But so often now it is the first allegation. It is used frequently as a weapon to cause problems for fathers who are trying to get access to their children. Consequently, the whole system which we are talking about with this audit report, is bogged down by the making of what are so often unsubstantiated and outrageous allegations. What happens in the system is that all of the litigants suffer because of it. Really, we have to start there. And I believe that we have to bring the public into the situation not only as a spectator in the back of the court, but also, I firmly believe, in juries. I firmly believe that the jury process is the one that gets the public into the court, into the process. Believe you me, the criminal jury is one area of law that we have not changed; over hundreds of years of experience, that system is still there. And yet more and more the civil courts have moved away from it. I ask this question: should we really start thinking about bringing the public back into it, getting these decisions on custody—rather than in eight months—in a few days, the time in which a jury would give them? Let us get commonsense into it, as opposed to all of the experts who are profiting and the huge costs to litigants in these matter. Overall, we have to look to the background of these things. But also we have to be sensible about the way we approach the administration of justice. We also have to be forward looking and not be bogged down in the past with any pre-existing and preconceived ideas. We need to change this system: it needs to be made much more user friendly, and litigants need to get justice. I believe that in many cases now they are not getting justice. | Australia | 1,998 |
In rising to speak to this Family and Community Affairs Committee report, I first wish to commend the secretariat for their hard work and coordinated effort in drawing together the various groups who presented their evidence on men's health. Problems associated with men's health have been exposed as being far broader than was my initial perception. As a member of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, I have been privileged to research information which indicates that there are many sides to men's health issues. This report goes a long way to revealing the extent of the concern that needs to be acknowledged. One of these issues is the matter of correct recognition of men as a key target group, a fact so often overlooked in the day to day routine of health management. You see, Mr Speaker, men experience higher mortality rates compared with women—and this is not in isolation or restricted to older men. In fact, males between the ages of 15 years and 24 years have a peak mortality rate at 2.65 times that of each single death of a female. When mortality rates are examined as a result of the more common causes, we note that the rate of
death from cardiovascular disease was 3.53 times more in men than the rate for what is identified as the working age group—that is, those aged from 24 to 65 years. The matter of `maleness' or `being a bloke' is an example of one of these problems which must be overcome. It can be inferred, Mr Speaker, that in most instances there is a case to indicate that men need to become more responsible for their own wellbeing. I am sure that other members present will recognise situations in their own families where the matter of attending for medical treatment has become sensitive to the point of frustration for the woman in the household, which eventually leads her to taking the decision to make appointments and push the man into seeking treatment. The lack of recognition by men of their health problems is best reflected by the attendance to GP consultation rates which show attendances for women undertaking health promotion services, such as screening or immunisation, at 6.1 per cent compared with men attendees for similar services at 2.1 per cent of all consultations. The difference highlighted by these statistics could in some way be a direct reflection of the advertising and promotional campaigns addressing matters such as breast cancer screening, immunisation and dietary information. Similarly, I am sure that there is a general train of thought amongst men which says, `Don't be a sook, there's nothing wrong with you.' Again I cite this as an example of men being men, and I would not want them to be anything different—unless it was at the expense of their health and, more importantly, their responsibilities to their family and loved ones. In the past it has been assumed that men's issues were adequately addressed by various general interventions. This has changed in recent times with a range of initiatives and research targeted specifically at men. The best example of this would be the strategic actions implemented to combat HIV-AIDS. Many speakers at our hearing recognised the success of this strategy—a strategy which has had international recognition because of its success. There are perhaps lessons to be learned from the HIV-AIDS program and strategies
which might be transferred to other issues of men's health. Mr Deputy Speaker, we have all been aware for some time of the problems associated with Aboriginal health. It is an awesome and tragic fact that the death rates of indigenous men are eight times those of the general population in some age groups. An area of men's health which has some future ramifications has been drawn to my attention in recent times and has come from within my own electorate in Bowman. I recently had discussions with staff and management at a community care centre offering services across the broad base of needs. There has emerged a growing trend towards violence by males under 10 years of age directed at their parents, with a growing number of cases identified in the past 12 months. In most cases, these acts of violence were carried out in single-parent families. More importantly, out of the total of 41 families identified as being at risk, 50 per cent had elements of domestic violence by males. These actions are a part of a lack of action in relation to men's health over many years, and it is imperative that any strategy towards the better managing of men's health include early intervention so that remedial processes can take effect on the example I have cited here. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I, like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Bowman (Mrs West), am pleased to be able to speak briefly on the report on the men's health seminar held last September. This is the second in the series following up on the very successful seminar we held on youth suicide. As the chairman stated in his opening remarks to the seminar, in recent decades we have focused primarily on women's health issues, with the obvious benefits that have flowed from this. There was a perception in the community that everything was fine in the area of men's health. As we all know, unfortunately, this is far from the truth. We as a sex are pretty hopeless when it comes to our medical needs. We have this foolish preconceived notion that there is no real need to adequately monitor our health status to take preventative meas
ures to ensure our long-term viability and longevity. We are scared of the perceived threat to our maleness by shying away, as the previous speaker said, from regular visits to the GP. Many of us see it as a sign of weakness. We know what is best for our own health. This was highlighted four weeks ago yesterday in my own instance when I had a pain in my chest. Being a typical male, I raced to the bathroom and took a couple of Panadol. I thought, `This is it, fine.' I went to get a glass of water and the pain was so intense that I knew I was in deep trouble. A week later, having had angioplasty and a whole series of medications, I am back here, thankfully. | Australia | 1,998 |
For another year, hopefully. I am one of those people whom the member for Bowman spoke of. We grin and bear it and do not go to the GP unless bones are poking out and the like. As I said, this seminar was convened in September last year in order to gather some really important information from a range of academics, general practitioners, health workers and other experts to give our committee and the parliament a broad general overview of the complex issues involved. We as a committee recognised that, despite an increased focus on men's health issues in recent times, there is no coherent policy context or direction at the national level. Highlighting the issues to the federal parliament through its committee structure provides a unique opportunity to identify key future directions in a bipartisan manner. The seminar provided us with some statistical information that was, to say the least, rather disturbing. These have already been provided by the honourable member for Bowman, the previous speaker. The major outcomes of the seminar that were worthy of note were, firstly, a clear description of men's poor health status which extends beyond standard health measures to broader aspects of men's wellbeing and quality of life; secondly, a clear articulation as to the neglect—I use that term advisedly—of health systems to systematically identify
and address the impact that maleness has on the full range of important men's health issues; and, thirdly, a range of constructive strategies to support and strengthen the existing responses to these problems at the community, regional, state and national levels. I would like to concentrate on the whole issue of maleness and the constructive strategies that are operating in our communities. I would imagine that most members could, at the drop of a hat, relate to some of the innovative things that are happening in the area of men's health in their own electorates. I would like to highlight the efforts of Paul Williams, who was a health worker initially at Bridgewater in Gagebrook when I first started working for Senator Michael Tate. Paul beat his head against bureaucracy, but he was determined to set up a 10-week program to address some of the issues on men's health because he realised, as a health worker, that they were not all specifically related to medical problems. There are a whole lot of other issues: education, housing, sexual relationships, domestic violence and the like. Paul, to his credit, set up a 10-week program. He initially sent out 500 letters. This was a pilot which worked so successfully that men wanted a second dose. It has now been implemented by the Glenorchy City Council through their community services office. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House on the report that we have tabled on men's health and the issue of men's health. It is a subject that, for a number of reasons, has not always had a high profile in public discussion. The subject, however, deserves such a profile, and it is very appropriate that such a matter of public importance is discussed in this public national forum so that the reluctance to address the subject is diminished and a greater impetus is given to public inquiry and debate on a number of important male-specific issues. Previous speakers have mentioned that for a number of years there has been an emphasis on unique women's health issues, and the mobilisation of resources in response to public concern has resulted in improved
health statistics for women. We cannot fail to notice the success of widespread breast cancer screening programs in reducing mortality from breast cancer and the rising awareness of the condition within the general population. But no less unique are male health issues. In fact, there are a number of statistics that call for an immediate focus on men's health, more public discussion and an allocation of resources to address a range of male-specific problems. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs was briefed at the seminar in September on the poor state of Australian men's health, wellbeing and quality of life. The statistics were alarming. We were informed of the higher congenital malformation rate for males, the higher infant mortality rate, the higher rate of drowning among boys than girls, higher alcohol consumption rates, significantly higher rates of obesity and diabetes, a higher prevalence of risk factors and lower utilisation of health services, death rates of up to eight times the general population in indigenous males, significant gender differences in preventable issues such as road accidents, suicides and drowning—and so the list went on. It is apparent that the health of any of us in society does not relate just to medical matters. A notable behavioural scientist, Maslow, described the hierarchy of need affecting the wellbeing of all individuals. This hierarchy incorporated a range of elements from basic needs such as food and shelter to physical and emotional security, good health and eventually self-actualisation. It is all of these elements within the hierarchy of health and wellbeing that we must aim to address. It is indeed a foundation of Liberal philosophy that government is concerned not only with the basic needs of its citizenry but also with the promotion of conditions that allow for individual choice and an opportunity to pursue one's own private interests—in other words, to reach the point of self-actualisation. It is in this context, in the light of these statistics that I have referred to, that this government wishes to signal its commitment to improving the health and wellbeing of our male population. A wide range of medical and social issues is raised in the statistics, and I would like to illustrate the importance of taking a holistic approach to each of these problems. The fact that men are reluctant to consult medical practitioners is a culturally entrenched problem that will not change overnight. It is often reported that the only reading material in doctors' surgeries bears names such as Cleo, Dolly and Women's Weekly. However, I am pleased to report that a spot check on reading material in a GP's surgery in my electorate uncovered a publication specifically entitled Men's Health. It is indeed a welcome indication of a trend towards more open discussion of male issues. This magazine included articles on travel, diet, fashion, sex and relationships, like so many other women's magazines, but it also featured articles on how to win at everything and how to unhook a bra with one hand, complete with illustrations. This may seem humorous or trivial, but it is a recognition of some genuine artefacts of Australian maleness. For strategies to improve men's health to be successful, there needs to be an understanding of what things are important to Australian males. Perhaps some more consequential elements of maleness that need to be understood are the importance to males of drinking, learning to drive, not displaying weakness and the need for social proof. Ignoring these realities would be a barrier to improving the health status of men. Rural health services and education and training programs which conduct men's nights out and gutbuster programs owe much of their success to designing their strategies in sympathy with the context of the culture of Australian maleness. With this strategy in place and these types of programs being promoted, I am sure we can be confident that the success gained—(Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
In speaking to the report of the Family and Community Affairs Committee, I firstly would like to pay tribute to the committee secretariat and the participants at the seminar that was held last year. My appreciation also goes to the committee chairman, John Forrest, who chaired the seminar. The exercise was useful, and I am regretful that more of my colleagues were not there to share the benefits. Establishing this kind of process, holding seminars of this nature, has been a useful and important part of the parliamentary committee process. The report is therefore a useful and worthwhile contribution. I also particularly want to thank the people who took part—those who came to Canberra and presented us with their wisdom, knowledge and experiences. In considering this matter, it is important that we first understand—demystify, if you like—some of the things about affirmative action. A lot of damage has been done in recent years with the topic of political correctness. People see affirmative action as being somehow a negative or prejudiced system. Looking at the evidence on men's health, it is absolutely clear that as a country we need to take some affirmative action on men's health. Those who get concerned about the notion of affirmative action end up doing great damage to our community. They do not understand that the way to solve all of our problems and to help the whole community is to understand the problem and tailor and target a solution to the actual problem, which means being affirmative about that problem. Whether it be Aboriginal health, men's health, women's health or breast cancer—a whole range of issues—we will not design a health system which suits everybody unless we suit each individual need. To do that we need to understand and to target and, therefore, be affirmative. It means that more money may be spent on one area than on another area, and it means that one area might be advertised or promoted above and beyond another area to ensure that we are being equal. The disabilities that exist in our community—whether it be learning disabilities or physical disabilities, or whatever kind they are—should be recognised, dealt with and understood. It means that we need to be affirmative about addressing those disabilities. Affirmative action is about being fair and equal—not being unfair and some getting more than others. We have had this mongering going on in the community that somehow anything that helps one group hurts everybody else. That is not so. By targeting and understanding the problems, we help all of us. Nowhere is that more clear than in men's health. Unless we demystify the language we use and the programs we run, we will not change a single thing and in 10 years or 20 years time parliamentarians will still be looking at the need to better target and better address men's health issues indicated in the statistics. The same parliamentary committee is currently inquiring into indigenous health. The demystification that is taking place as we uncover the actuality as opposed to the perception is illuminating. Never before has there been a greater need for particular programs of targeting and affirmative action to help improve the health of our indigenous Australians. At the same time many in the community will be saying, `Why should they get special help?' Because they have special needs. Why should men get special programs? Because they have special needs. If we keep the argument about affirmative action, as we appear to do and as do those neanderthals in the community in the political sense, that will do all of us great harm. The recommendations of this report are to establish interdepartmental committees and to better understand and to better target men's health needs. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I move: That this House:(1) condemns the failure of the Treasurer to allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor bank fees and charges;(2) condemns the Treasurer for permitting the banks to massively increase fees and charges for battlers and pensioner bank customers;
(3) regrets that the Treasurer has allowed the banks to abandon affordable banking for battlers and pensioners in favour of maintaining or increasing bank profits; and(4) notes with regret the Treasurer's priority of encouraging billion dollar profits for the banks and multi-million dollar salaries for banking executives at the expense of the ordinary customers of the banks. The first thing I wanted to point out to the House is that the banks are a key institution in our society, if not an essential institution. I cannot think of any person who can survive very well without using the services of a bank. I have always thought that the prime purpose of banks—the most important one, not one that they share exclusively on their own—is to husband the nation's savings. We have heard a lot in this House about the importance of increasing national savings, both private national savings and, of course, public national savings. No-one can go and set up a bank; they need to obtain a banking licence. I think we need to ask ourselves, setting aside the prudential and fiduciary responsibilities of the banks, `What comes with that banking licence?'. There is no such requirement in the legislation for what we might call community service obligations. Are there a minimum number of branches that are required to be maintained? Do banks need to reach out to every nook and cranny throughout the Commonwealth? I note that the Parliamentary Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration is looking at the reach of banks in rural and regional Australia. I welcome that, and I look forward to its report. There is also an issue about the urban poor and the reach there. I hope that the committee will not be deflected from giving some attention to those people. I suppose one might ask: are banks such a poor financial proposition that it is grossly unfair for members of the House to talk about issues such as community service obligations? I will give a few figures on bank profitability. In 1993 the ANZ Bank made $247 million, while in 1997 it made $1.02 billion. In 1993 the Commonwealth Bank made $443 million, while in 1997 it made $1.08 billion. In 1993 NAB made $1.13 billion, while in 1997 it
made $2.2 billion. In 1993 Westpac made $39 million and $1.29 billion in 1997. In other words, banks are amongst some of the profitable, if not the most profitable, undertakings in this Commonwealth. I do not have a particular objection to that if they are meeting their customers' requirements. I do not think that is the case. When we were in government in 1994 we instituted a PSA inquiry into the fees and charges that banks were levelling, particularly for pensioners and their poorer customers. I think it is an absolute matter of regret, if not shame, that the Treasurer, Peter Costello, refuses to allow the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake a 1998 inquiry. In other words, the Treasurer is quite satisfied with the way the banks are operating, particularly in relation to pensioners and ordinary customers—particularly the poorer customers. If a pensioner wants to avoid using a bank, we require them to use a bank. We insist that their social security benefit cheque be placed into a bank. I am sure honourable members will recall a series of negotiations where all workers were required to give up cash being paid out to them on payday and have that money put into a bank. In other words, people do not have freedom of choice in terms of receiving cash or a cheque in the mail. It has to be put into a bank. What is happening with fees and charges? There are some very good examples. I am indebted to Choice magazine for giving them to me. A customer with a medium use of their bank account who keeps a low balance will lose between $49 per year and as much as $130 per year. We have to bear in mind that these are the people who can least afford to meet these charges. In comparison, a person with a medium balance and a high use will only lose between $6 and $25 per year, while the person who holds a high bank balance with a medium use would earn, not lose, $95 to $235 per year. Where is the equity in all that? It is not as if we have a range of consumer protection at work or an intense level of competition. How often have members of parliament heard those words `competition
solves everything'? In fact, in this industry it does not. Although the banks are complaining bitterly about the inroads, for example, that Aussie Home Loans and RAMS are making into their housing market, they still operate with some of the highest profits not just of corporations but by worldwide standards. The margins are very high. But this government has allowed banks to increase their fees in a way ordinary people and pensioners cannot retaliate against. It is not a question of shopping around, because by and large they all charge the same exorbitant fees. If you are a pensioner you are not going to be better off by shopping around with banks. If you are a worker with a low deposit you are not going to be better off shopping around the banks because you are not going to do any good. People might say, `Well, we have the Banking Ombudsman scheme.' Indeed, it is pleasing to see that we do have the Banking Ombudsman scheme. In the last year he has suffered a 30 per cent increase in complaints, but the ombudsman cannot rule on the level of fees and charges. He can rule as to whether they have been appropriately placed or made, but he cannot rule as to whether they are too high. I say that what we need to do is to stop having the banks pay, as the ANZ does to its recently recruited chief executive, $2 million a year in annual salary plus options. I think we need to say that when banks get a licence it is a licence to print money, that there are obligations over and above good corporate citizenship, that the market place has failed to protect ordinary workers and pensioners and that we need to do something about it. The National Farmers Federation is much in the news. Apparently, they have a multi-million dollar fighting fund. Let me say to the House: I am disappointed that not once has the National Farmers Federation approached me or any of my colleagues to see why we cannot have a bank farm debt mediation bill, which has been successfully operating, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, in your state and my state for some time. They will not spend one of those National Farmers Federation dollars to save one farmer being thrown out of his farm. I have never been approached by the National Farmers Federation saying, `We're concerned about how rural and regional Australia is losing its banking infrastructure.' It seems to me that if you want to be a successful bank you do what ANZ has done—say to 1,700 workers, `Goodbye. We'll close a few more branches and we'll increase our bottom line.' Their bottom line, again, was $1.02 billion in 1997. Are they going to better that in 1998? Is the Commonwealth, NAB or Westpac going to better it by declining to provide services to people and by failing to have charges that ordinary people can cope with? (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I must admit that while listening to the member for Chifley (Mr Price) the more I heard the more confused I became because I really could not understand what he was speaking about. He has a motion before the House and he started off by saying, `I believe banks are an essential service,' or something close to it. After he said he understood why banks had to make profits, he then turned around and complained bitterly about the fact that they do make profits and spent most of his speech attacking the banks. Yet in his opening remarks he tried to have two bob each way and said, `I'm not really going to attack them; they're really not bad people, but . . . '.I do not have any brief with the banks, but I do find that whole approach very confusing. His suggestion seemed to be, as far as I could understand it, that we should have another inquiry. He talked about the inquiry when Labor was in power, yet we did not see a hell of a lot happen with that. You will remember when Mr Willis said back in 1995, `I'll direct the new Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to formally monitor' and so on. We have been through all that. If you want to talk about inquiries, I think one of the most successful inquiries that has been held in recent years, which parallels some that were held in earlier years, is the Wallis inquiry into financial systems. That
was one that was initiated by the current Treasurer (Mr Costello), whom I think the member for Chifley wanted to attack in his motion but did not mention much of during his speech. What that was all about was how we do in fact introduce competition. I have to say to my friend the member for Chifley: competition is working because, as you rightly pointed out, home mortgage rates have come down far more than official interest rates have come down. That is because competition has provided a much better, more efficient service to consumers. The consumers have been the winners. That is exactly what has come out of it. If we look at some of his other comments, he said that we have to use a bank. Credit unions are also offering a very good service, and a lot of people are turning to credit unions because, under this government, we have allowed credit unions to issue cheques in their own right, which allows them to expand the range of services they are offering. This ensures that people do get an alternative, a choice. That is what competition is, my friend. That is giving people a real choice. When I look at the whole motion that has been put, I think it has breathtaking hypocrisy. After 13 years in government, having not addressed any of these issues, he comes into this parliament and starts crying about it as though we do not already have monitoring going on. We know already that the ACCC and the Reserve Bank are monitoring the charges in bank fees. We already know that if there is any anti-competitive measures going on between the banks the ACCC can investigate that. It is already there. We have to give full marks to the Treasurer and to the government, because by increasing competition we have ensured that consumers have benefited. I have mentioned already what is happening with the home mortgage rates. I wonder why he has not fully noticed all that. I think you also have to notice that, with the implementation of the recommendations of the Wallis inquiry, we are going to see further competition introduced. As Wallis has pointed out in his report, Australia's financial systems are about mid-range in world terms and there are effectively savings
of around 10 per cent of the full cost of operating our financial systems—savings of around $4 billion a year that can be had if we go down the path of opening up the system to further competition. I think the member has to remember that, by bringing in that competition, the government is benefiting consumers. We are already seeing some of the technological innovations—like EFTPOS, phone banking and ATMs—also cutting costs. I do not carry any brief for the banks. I think at times they have done some remarkably silly things, and I have said so publicly as recently as last week. Today 3AW reported what I would call another silly little move: a bank in East Kew in Melbourne is now charging non-account customers to get notes changed into 20-cent coins or whatever to pay for a telephone call or put in a parking meter. I must admit that, when I hear those sorts of stories, I think the banks cannot help themselves sometimes. I was equally horrified when the Australian Bankers Association chose to publicise some fairly useful material when making a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, which I chair. I believe the deputy, the member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton), will be speaking shortly. The Bankers Association chose to present this information at Penshurst about three days after the National Bank had announced it would close its branch there. I thought that was unbelievable timing, but such is the way some banks do operate. What horrified me even more was that, in relation to another branch that was being closed at the same time at Macarthur, just south of Hamilton, it has been revealed that the Moyne Shire Council had a contract with the National Bank after tendering for banking services. Part of that contract said quite clearly that the services would continue to be provided in, amongst other places, Macarthur. That shows quite clearly that the banks really do not understand what it is to provide a reasonable service to customers. I would like to expand a bit on some of the work the committee is doing. I think it is undertaking a very worthwhile role. I see
another committee member has come into the chamber. I think all members realise that we will do some very good work in looking for alternative ways of providing banking services in regional and remote Australia. We want to see how we can ensure that people who cannot use or access some of the new technologies can still access some of what we would call the more traditional services that people in larger centres take for granted. In this vein, the committee was most heartened last week to hear, in a meeting with the ANZ Bank, its new CEO, Mr John McFarlane, take on the concerns of the committee and come up with a very positive approach. He pointed out that he accepts that the market will not solve on its own the problem of providing services in regional and remote areas. He is prepared to look at innovative solutions that would include cooperating with the government and other financial institutions, which I think is a very significant statement. He also put forward a very positive attitude in getting involved on a national scale with GiroPost. I think the committee understood that would include addressing some of the difficulties the banks have had in the past where they may have been cooperating with GiroPost in competition with one of their own branches. Mr McFarlane also showed that he is keen to help develop an environment that will help the committee address its inquiry terms of reference that look beyond the concerns of each major bank. Most importantly, he suggested we can address the needs of the community by having the major banks collectively trying to work towards solutions. To hear all that is a big breakthrough. Mr McFarlane went on to talk about his own experiences in Scotland with mobile banking. I think all members of the committee were very impressed with what they heard that day. I call on the CEOs of the other major banks to take up that challenge and join the committee in working towards seeing whether we can find ways of solving some of these problems facing regional Australia and probably some suburban areas too. In conclusion, while the mover of this motion can criticise the banks certainly in
some areas, I think parts of that competition cannot be taken in isolation as the overall positive effects of competition have benefited the community greatly. Consumers have been the big winners. Instead of condemning the Treasurer with this miserable motion, its mover should be praising the Treasurer for providing a more competitive environment, for bringing about much lower home mortgages and lower overall banking costs and, importantly, allowing new players into the game, which will further benefit consumers in an area that we all know is vital and essential in everyday lives. | Australia | 1,998 |
As much as it was a privilege for me to second this motion submitted by the member for Chifley (Mr Price), I am equally and obviously a bit disturbed by some of the comments made by the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), who, whilst he has done a fair and decent job as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, I think on this occasion has made comments which serve no greater role than as the banks' official apologist. I challenge the member for Wannon to circulate the speech he just made to parts of his own world—in Timboon, Simpson or Macarthur—where banks have closed and monitor the response of his constituents. They might agree that in many areas the committee which he chairs, and which I have the honour to also be a member of, has done some good work but I think we would have done much better work had the Treasurer (Mr Costello) thrown the committee more than a few crumbs as a result of the Wallis inquiry. The member for Wannon cites the Wallis inquiry as being a major inquiry into bank activity, but he fails to mention that no consumer protection at all is cited within the outcome of the Wallis inquiry. If Mr Costello does, as I am sure he has already done, accept the Wallis report and recommendation that government keep out of fees and charges, he will—and he already has effectively—be telling banks to go for their lives. Those banks have already been jacking up their fees to make up for the money that they are losing
on their housing margins when faced with competition from the new home lenders. They have now been given the green light to push those fees and charges even further. The member for Wannon knows that these regressive bank fees and charges should be the subject of government scrutiny and government control. But, under this government, these rising fees and charges have just been ignored. In fact the Treasurer has given a green light to banks charging more and more for basic services. Your average Australian is being charged a substantial amount of money for what is a basic need. This government has indeed turned its back on the battlers. Two years ago today it promised to govern for all Australians. Under Labor the banks were pressured into providing a no-frills account where over the counter transactions were free. This helped people on low incomes such as pensioners and students. But banks of course are again putting up these charges. Choice magazine, in an often quoted article from March 1997, stated: Banks are systematically raising existing fees and charges. They're also coming up with new charges that hit every aspect of your transactions. And they're making some fees harder to avoid. The fees and charges are also confusing, as each financial institution has its own particular combination, making comparison very difficult. This article is from a year ago, yet fees and charges in this regard continue to rise. The people hit hardest are those on lower incomes. The facts and figures cited by the member for Chifley are worth repeating. He said that that same Choice article found that a low bank account balance, usually under $500, would attract bank fees from anywhere between $49 and a staggering $139. Mr Costello tells us that competition under these Wallis reforms will lead to lower bank charges and fees. But there has been no evidence of this. There has been no evidence of this in my part of the world. There has been no evidence of this in Horsham or Hamilton. There has been no evidence of this anywhere. Low income people are still paying far too much for a service that they cannot afford to be without. | Australia | 1,998 |
The point of the fact is that it was your side of politics that deregulated the banking industry and said, `We've got to have competition.' But you really did not do much with it, did you? You left the four majors in place. We got four from an amalgamation of about six, I think it was. Instead of letting other players really come in and compete with over the counter banking, you let it stay static. The member for Chifley in this motion talks about increasing fees and charges for battlers and pensioner bank customers. I would have thought, if the member for Chifley cared about the battlers and the pensioners, that he would care about the fact that today interest rates are around six per cent or seven per cent—not 27 per cent. I can recall what you lot did to the whole blessed business sector as
well as private individuals when, in order to do something about the recession we had to have, you put the interest rates up to 27 per cent. I tell you what: you killed the goose, dead as a blessed doornail, and set in train your own demise. The battlers and the pensioners like the lower interest rates. Why? Because they are the ones that are borrowing the money. They are not putting it up there to get the interest back, are they? I have no brief for the big banks. I think they need more competition. I agree with you. I think the fact that we are allowing the community co-ops now to issue cheques for their own accounts is absolutely brilliant policy. It will put more pressure on banks. The mortgage originators have put incredible pressure on the banks. They have helped push interest rates down and down. That helps the battlers; that helps the pensioners; that helps everybody on low incomes. It does not help the high income earners. He has it all wrong. I apologise to the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). The member for Wannon called this a miserable motion. I would not put it quite in those terms. I think it is a bit silly, but I would not say it was absolutely miserable. The member for Wannon described this whole issue as one of hypocrisy. That is fair enough. The member for Chifley `notes with regret the Treasurer's priority of encouraging billion dollar profits for the banks and multi-million dollar salaries for banking executives at the expense of the ordinary customers of the banks'. What a lot of rubbish that is. Whoever said that the Treasurer (Mr Costello) was encouraging multiple billion dollar profits? Of course the Treasurer wants the banking sector to be profitable. What do you want? Do you want the banks to go into liquidation? Do you want another government regulator, another government bureaucracy, to tell the banks where they can set the levels of their fees and charges and what levels of interest rates we will have in the country? Is that the kind of re-regulation you would like to do? This is the new Labor Party, isn't it, going back to old issues. | Australia | 1,998 |
As the member for Swan I am obliged to address
the ludicrous comments made by the previous member for Swan, now the member for Brand (Mr Beazley), who is alleging that there is something improper in the allocation of funds under the Natural Heritage Trust. Mr Beazley received $500,000—half a million dollars—out of the $30 million allocated for sports facilities funding, or as we know it the Labor sports rorts, when he was the member for Swan. As the current member for Swan I have not yet received anything for my electorate under the Natural Heritage Trust even though Swan is largely bordered by Perth's major rivers. In contrast, Mr Beazley has already received over $38,000 for his current electorate of Brand under the Natural Heritage Trust. Despite this, Mr Beazley wants an inquiry into the Natural Heritage Trust. The government is happy to do this because the process of funding allocation has been and remains completely transparent and accountable. The days of the whiteboard and the sports rorts are well and truly over under this government. Mr Beazley clearly does not remember that there could be no inquiry into the sports rorts because by the time Ros Kelly wiped off her whiteboard there was literally nothing to investigate. Anyone who says that funding allocations to look after Perth's major rivers, such as the Swan and the Canning, would constitute a rort obviously has no concern for our waters, bird life, fish or future of our rivers. The successful one-third sale of Telstra has given this country an environmental protection and rescue package.(Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
On Saturday, 21 February I joined with the Mayor of Blacktown, Charles Lowles, in opening an exhibition of model trains conducted by the Lions Club of Blacktown. The purpose of this exhibition was to raise funds to purchase equipment for Blacktown District Hospital. As the federal member for Greenway, I am delighted with the many organisations in my electorate, such as the Lions Club, the Country Women's Association, committees associated with sporting organisations, church groups such as St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, school groups, scouts and
guides, who are working in our community to make our region a better place to live. This means that many hundreds of Blacktown citizens are giving their time freely to assist worthy projects in our region. To all of these groups, but on this occasion particularly to the Lions Club of Blacktown, I say thank you. I would like to mention some of the organisations that the Blacktown Lions Club has assisted over the past 12 months. They have provided funds to purchase a wheelchair for a cerebral palsy victim and to aircondition a home for a disabled person. They have raised funds for the cord blood project, for the children's hospital and for riding for the disabled. All up, Blacktown Lions Club has raised over $26,000 in six months for these organisations. The Lions Club in Blacktown commenced 38 years ago with the purchase of a residential house for a cerebral palsy victim and her chronically arthritic husband. This lady still lives in this house. (Time expired). | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise to comment on the new privatised employment services in the central west of New South Wales. I welcome the success of an organisation like the Central West Community College, which has shown its ability to achieve real outcomes under some of the labour market initiatives of the previous government and is well placed to deliver on this program. However, I reserve judgment on the ability of the new scheme to deliver anything meaningful to the long-term unemployed. I still suspect the more attractive clientele will be those offering a very likely outcome while the unskilled and occupationally unattractive will continue to languish. The highly respected John Thornett, the CEO of the Cabonne-Orange-Blayney Business Enterprise Centre, is astounded at the loss by the Forbes-Parkes Enterprise Centre, for which the Orange and Lithgow centres acted as subagents, of the new enterprise incentive and other job placement contracts. He alleges stupid decisions and, quite possibly, improper practices in determining these contracts and, like others in country areas, wonders how groups like Wesley Mission can do a better placement job than organisations like the BECs, which are already on the ground at a local level with proven outcomes. I hope this scheme works and that it does not just end up benefiting the new marketplace bounty hunters and further marginalising the least employable. Whatever the good intent of the so-called `flex three' contracts, it makes more commercial sense to chase four certain $3,000 bounties than one highly risky $10,000 reward. When it is all said and done, no program yet addresses the real problem of unemployment. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
by leave— I move: That this House:(1) condemns Iraq's past non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 687, requiring inspections and the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and calls on Iraq to abide fully by them;(2) welcomes the UN Secretary-General's agreement with Iraq committing Iraq to accord UNSCOM and the IAEA immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes the Secretary-General's view of the importance of the prospect of military force in supporting diplomatic efforts to achieve such an agreement;(3) affirms its support for Australian Defence Force personnel deployed to the Gulf and Australia's other efforts to ensure Iraq's compliance with UN resolutions and uphold the effectiveness of the UN inspection regime;(4) affirms its support for the international community taking appropriate and necessary measures in the event that Iraq does not honour the commitments it has now made, and in this context affirms that continuing deploy
ment of forces in the Gulf is appropriate while Iraq's commitments are tested; and(5) looks forward to the satisfactory completion of the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA as a major contribution to world security and an important step towards achieving a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction, as recognised in Resolution 687.The decision was taken by the Australian government a few weeks ago to deploy Australian Defence Force personnel to the Gulf, and might I say it was a decision taken with the full support of the Australian Labor Party and of the opposition. I acknowledge at the commencement of my speech the importance of the fact that those forces were deployed overseas with the support of both the government and the opposition. I think it is always important that when Australian forces are sent abroad there be the maximum degree of political support for the deployment. I should also note that at every stage it has been the desire and in fact the practice of my government to keep the opposition fully informed of the material available to us and fully apprised of what we have had in mind. I want to record at the outset my appreciation of the support given to the deployment of those forces by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley).The issues at stake in this resolution go very much to the heart of the future security of the kind of world we want, the effectiveness and credibility of monitoring regimes established by the United Nations and the capacity of the international community to preserve security in the face of threats from a regime which has thumbed its nose at the civilised world. There may be some in the Australian community who take the rather misguided view that Iraq is a long way away from Australia and that in some way Australia is involving herself in a dispute which has no relevance to this country and poses little threat to the security of this country, and is in fact involving itself in essentially a dispute between the United States and the Iraqi leadership. That kind of view of the dispute that has gone on in the Gulf is a very misguided view and a view that completely misunderstands the record of defiance, of
arrogance and of deceit that has been practised by the Iraqi leadership since the successful conclusion of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.It is in Australia's interest that the behaviour of Saddam Hussein be checked. It is in Australia's interest that the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council be enforced and it is in Australia's interest that the weapons of mass destruction that are in the hands of Saddam Hussein do not spread and are destroyed. It is always in the interest of Australia that rogue behaviour by anybody be stopped and it is always in the interest of Australia that the authority of the United Nations be upheld. The reality is that, if Iraq is able to succeed in thumbing her nose at the authority of the United Nations, if Iraq is able to succeed in maintaining and potentially using weapons of mass destruction in the future, other countries, including some closer to Australia, could easily be emboldened into believing that they could do a similar thing. That is why the leadership that has been displayed by the United States on this issue should be both endorsed and applauded. The United States has been a patient respondent to the provocative behaviour of Saddam Hussein, who ever since 1991 has thumbed his nose with impunity at the authority of the United Nations. The House ought to be reminded that Saddam Hussein has not been reluctant in the past to use weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He used them against the Kurdish minority in Iraq, and he also used weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq-Iran war. He likes to say that UNSCOM is the problem. The reality is that UNSCOM has uncovered nearly 38,000 chemical weapons, nearly half a million litres of the chemical agents which go into producing these weapons as well as a biological weapons plant, missiles and warheads. It is quite frightening for the world to contemplate the purposes for which these weapons might have been stored. All of us, throughout this dispute, have hoped that military action could be avoided, and that remains the universal desire and, I am sure, the universal resolve of all honour
able members. It ought to be recorded that the willingness of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other countries to deploy forces and to indicate a preparedness to use those forces if necessary has played a major role in bringing about the agreement between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Iraqi leadership. As Kofi Annan himself said—and I think it summed up precisely the strategic importance of what has occurred in recent weeks—`You can do a lot with diplomacy, but with diplomacy backed up by force you can get a lot more done.' The reality is that if we had not joined the United States and if the United States had not shown the leadership it did then Kofi Annan and the Iraqi leadership would not have concluded the agreement that was signed in Baghdad last week. I want to place on record the appreciation of the government, and I believe of the Australian people, for the work that has been undertaken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. All of us hope that the agreement that was signed is worth the paper that it was written on. All of us hope that the commitments made on this occasion by Saddam Hussein will be honoured. It is fair to say that there are many around the world, including many people in Australia, who are entitled to feel utterly cynical about public commitments that are being made by the Iraqi leadership because in the past—and there should be no illusions about this—Iraq has made promises which have been cynically dishonoured. Iraq has a track record of deceit and obstruction. It has shown little regard for the United Nations' resolutions and agreements and over the past seven years—indeed, since 1991—the Iraqi regime has constantly challenged the terms of the cease-fire mandated by the United Nations. For four years it denied it had a biological weapons program, it has still not accounted for the germ bombs that were made for the Iraqi air force, and Saddam Hussein has deliberately refused to relieve the burden of sanctions from his own people. I say again, and it is an undeniable fact, that Saddam Hussein has only to honour the commitments
of the cease-fire agreement entered into after he withdrew from Kuwait in the face of Operation Desert Storm for those sanctions to be lifted. The international community must see this one through, just as it stood firm in 1990 and 1991 when he invaded a peaceful neighbour. It is important that no troop withdrawals take place until Iraq's commitment to the agreement signed last week has been fully tested. It would be absurd in the extreme if Saddam Hussein's word were to be relied upon alone. It is absolutely essential that the commitments that were made by the Iraqis be fully, adequately and comprehensively tested by a thorough and total inspection before there is any contemplation of relaxing the military pressure which has been applied so successfully to Iraq over the past few weeks. It is the policy of the Australian government, and I believe the overwhelming wish of the Australian people, that United Nations Security Council resolutions, especially 678 and 687, should be fully honoured. The specific conditions of the cease-fire, concluded in 1991, were that Iraq would dismantle its existing weapons of mass destruction and not reacquire them in the future, and UNSCOM, now led by an Australian, Mr Richard Butler, was constituted to verify compliance by Iraq with those resolutions. Australia has made a very significant contribution to its work by providing experts in chemical and biological weapons. Australia continues to be at the forefront of efforts to strengthen the regimes against chemical and biological weapons. As chairman of the group, Australia has led the world in establishing common export controls on chemical and biological agents which could be used for weapons. But more can and must be done to strengthen the international regime against biological weapons. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) will be making a detailed announcement today about a new initiative being proposed by Australia in this connection. There is an urgent need to conclude a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention and Australia, as the foreign minister will announce later today, will take a lead in placing these negotiations
on a fast track. Specifically, we will push for the conclusion of the negotiations as soon as possible; we will call for a high level international meeting to inject the necessary political commitment to achieve this; we will develop a draft protocol text to help move the negotiations to an early conclusion; and we will convene a national advisory group, drawing on the expertise of industry, science and academia, to address the complex technical issues which need to be settled in the negotiations. I would like to conclude my remarks by addressing some comments to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are currently stationed in the Gulf. Australians can take an enormous amount of pride in the professionalism, the commitment, the courage and the high standards in every respect of our Defence Force personnel. It was a particular experience of my prime ministership to have the opportunity—indeed, the privilege—to farewell the members of the SAS Regiment and also the Air Force personnel at Campbell Barracks in Western Australia some 10 days ago. On that occasion, I am pleased to say, I was joined by the Leader of the Opposition and we spoke with a common voice in wishing the fighting men and women of Australia godspeed and good luck as they went overseas. They were, in their conversations with both of us, a bright, alert, committed group of people who understood full well the dangers involved in the mission they were undertaking, but because of the superb quality of the training and their finely-honed commitment to professional soldiering they were very ready for the task. What lies ahead of them at this stage we still do not know. The prospect of their being involved in armed conflict is certainly less now than it was when they left Australia a short while ago. But we have no guarantee—particularly if his conduct to date is any guide—that Saddam Hussein will ultimately honour the commitments that he has made. All of us hope that armed conflict will not be necessary. All of us hope that the deployment of military forces, the willingness to use military force, will be sufficient to bring about an ultimately peaceful resolution of this
dispute. But at the end of the day—and this message must never be forgotten by any member of this House—the history of the whole of the 20th century indicates that if international bullies, dictators and tyrants are allowed to get away with that kind of conduct, if their bullying and their threats constantly bring about retreat rather than resistance, then in the end the price paid by the rest of the world is infinitely greater and infinitely more bloody than the price that might have been paid if resistance had been entertained at an earlier stage. Saddam Hussein in 1991 was stopped and forced to withdraw from Kuwait by the combined effort of the coalition forces. On this occasion a smaller but nonetheless powerful coalition led by the United States, including active involvement by Australia, has succeeded in forcing Saddam Hussein to negotiate. It remains to be seen whether he will be as good as his word. As far as the Australian government is concerned, it is appropriate that not only the United States but also Australian forces remain in the Gulf while the commitments of the Iraqis are fully tested. I know that we in the government and many people in Australia will await with very keen interest and anticipation precisely what comes out of those inspections. Finally, on behalf of all members of the House and the Australian people, I thank the members of the Australian Defence Force who are currently serving in the Gulf. We wish them well. We admire their professional commitment. We thank them for their courage and we respect immensely the enormous job that they are doing on behalf of the entire Australian nation. | Australia | 1,998 |
I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and at the outset acknowledge the comments
he made about the views that the opposition or I expressed. I also confirm his statement that when we have sought information on the nature of the commitment that Australia is making and on the detail of the international diplomatic effort it has been forthcoming to the opposition in accord with the Australian tradition. It has been very useful for us to have that information. I also join him at the outset in expressing my thanks to the Australian serving personnel who have departed for the Gulf. It is of course, at any point in time when we seek to commit forces overseas, a matter for appropriate debate between governments, oppositions and in the community generally as to whether that commitment ought to be made. That is a normal part of the political discourse in a democracy. However, it is not a matter of debate for those who are amongst our serving personnel. By way of anecdote, I recollect the occasion that the Prime Minister referred to when he and I farewelled the Australian forces on their way. He concluded his remarks, made at some length, and there was no applause at the end of them. That was not because the remarks were inappropriate or ineffectively delivered. They were appropriate and they were effectively delivered. But there was an atmosphere in the place from a group of men and women who were there to hear from the government which commands them the reasons why they were being deployed. It was not a matter for debate for them; it was merely for them to hear what was being presented to them, to hold discussions, to talk to the Prime Minister, me and anyone else who happened to be around immediately after that and then to go. It is a level of commitment which I think is always important for us to acknowledge. I am sure all Australians, whether they have views in accord with the government and the opposition on this matter or not, would also join in wishing the Australian armed forces over there well in the circumstances in which they find themselves. There has of course been some matter of debate in the Australian community about this, and I would want at this point particular
ly to note the fact that some members of the Arab-Australian community have been deeply concerned. That is not a matter that reflects upon their patriotism or their commitment to this nation—not for one minute—and that has been appropriately recognised too by the government and opposition in their remarks. I doubt whether there would be a single person amongst that community who would have anything other than good regard for the Australian forces overseas. If anyone were to doubt that commitment, I learned anecdotally only the other week that, hitherto, a fertile ground—and a disproportionate representation therefore—for recruitment to the Australian defence forces has always been Queensland and particularly rural Queensland. They are being joined in that disproportionality these days by members of the Arab-Australian community. That is a point worth noting in the context— | Australia | 1,998 |
The Prime Minister indicates that he met a person of that background in Darwin when he was visiting members of the armed forces there. I think that that is an important point to make in reflection upon the past few weeks and in reflection on events yet to come. I also want to join the Prime Minister in placing on record our appreciation of the services of Kofi Annan and the outcome that he was able to achieve. He had, of course, before him the example of a previous UN Secretary-General—Perez de Cueller—who sought to negotiate with Saddam Hussein in 1991 and was unsuccessful. It was not a background that would have given Kofi Annan any encouragement as he approached the task set before him. Nevertheless, he was able to secure an agreement—an agreement which, of course, is yet to be enforced and which, as this motion appropriately recognises, has to be the subject of testing in relation to the word of Saddam Hussein on it. Nevertheless, a substantial agreement it appears. Kofi Annan was quick to acknowledge that his capacity to achieve that was because his position was backed up by a willingness on
the part of others to display firmness and contemplate force. It was not something that he said when he got back to New York. It was something that he said when he was actually there conducting a joint interview with the official from Iraq with whom he had been negotiating. It is an achievement that deserves the greatest possible respect. But it is also an achievement that indicates the significance of the UN's role in this exercise and the importance of our not moving away from stressing the fact that every possible opportunity ought to be taken to ensure that, in this action and in any further action that arises from it, the best endeavours ought to be made to secure the maximum possible cooperation amongst all nations of goodwill who are members of the United Nations to bring about an outcome. When you have a Secretary-General who is capable of performing with considerable diplomatic success, that is something that ought not to be set aside lightly. I do think it is important that in this exercise we seek, and the motion refers to, international endeavour in relation to ensuring that this agreement is upheld. I do think it is important that we seek to optimise that United Nations involvement, that international community involvement. As somebody who was on the security committee in 1991 at the time that we made an initial commitment to the Gulf in that conflict whose unfinished business we are dealing with here today, I found impressive the way in which United States diplomacy in particular—that country being head of the coalition forces that were congregating to deal with the problem—was able to secure agreements through the United Nations for action to be taken. I would urge upon our American counterparts, whose commitment in this regard has been correctly characterised by the Prime Minister, to seek a similar environment in relation to the arrangements that we are now putting in place. As I said before, this is a matter which is the principal part—not the only part—of the unfinished business of the 1991 Gulf conflict. At the conclusion of that, Saddam Hussein signed up to an agreement which said that he
would `vacate the ownership of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems'. He subsequently misled the international public about precisely his level of involvement and possession of those weapons and, in all probability, continues to seek to mislead the international public about that situation. But it is important to reflect upon this fact: many more weapons and materials associated with weapons have been destroyed as a result of UNSCOM inspections than were destroyed by bombing activities of the coalition and other military activities of the coalition during the Gulf War. And they have been very considerable: 480,000 litres of live chemical weapon agents; 38,000 chemical weapon munitions; 30 special missile warheads for chemical and biological weapons; 690 tonnes of chemical weapon agents; 3,000 tonnes of chemical weapon precursors. These are very substantial capabilities, already established and destroyed as a result of UNSCOM activities. UNSCOM in the time—as a product of their own investigations and as a product, too, of defections—has discovered that Iraq produced 19,000 litres of botulism, 8,400 litres of anthrax, 2,000 litres of aflatoxin and a considerable amount of clostridium, and has admitted filling ballistic missile warheads and bombs with the first three of those biological agents. They denied the existence of any biological weapon program until 1995, and claimed that the principal anthrax production facility was for the production of animal feed. It needs to be reflected upon that 100 kilograms of anthrax dispersed in a densely populated area could kill as many people as a nuclear weapon, and it is a far easier weapon to deliver by far less sophisticated processes than applies in the delivery of nuclear warheads. The question arises from all of that, of course, is: why ought there still to be inquiries in regard to their capabilities? Apart from any inability to rely on Saddam Hussein's word, we still have a substantial number of critical missile components, warheads and propellant not accounted for; nor are 17 tonnes of growth media for biological warfare agents—enough to produce more than three
times the amount of anthrax that Iraq admits it had; and 4,000 tonnes of material for the production of chemical weapons precursors are not accounted for. And I could go on. There are a wide variety of chemical precursors, biological precursors and delivery systems known to be in the possession of the Iraqi government that have not to this point of time been exposed by UNSCOM's exploration. It is important to acknowledge also that, of course, an awful lot of what is done in the sorts of establishments which would produce chemical and biological weapons is legitimate, ordinary, commercial chemical and biological business. It can be used for perfectly acceptable peaceful processes or can be converted for use for some of the most heinous weapons that men's imagination has yet managed to devise. It is only by an inspection regime that there will be a capacity to discover a continued adherence to the terms of resolution 687, which concluded the war. So I welcome the proposition that has been put forward by the government to fast-track a regime for the general disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical and biological weapons. I think the remarks they made were in regard in particular to biological weapons. I think it is a reasonable point to make that it is not just Saddam Hussein who ought to be regarded with concern as potentially the possessor of these weapons. These weapons have no business in the human family—none at all—and should be excluded from them altogether. Our concerns about Saddam Hussein's situation, while heightened, ought not to be unique. It is entirely appropriate that the point be made to him as well as to others that we are seeking general universal disarmament as far as these weapons are concerned. Therefore, we welcome in particular this part of the motion which has been moved here today that talks about the need for this to be a step in a generalised exclusion of weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East altogether. All parties in the Middle East that might possess or contemplate the use of these weapons ought to be part of a regime
which sees their dismantling. Resolution 687 anticipated this. This particular proposition is contained within resolution 687. While it is important for the globe generally for all nations to be divested of these weapons, it is particularly important in any historical conflict zone that these weapons ought to be removed. Of course, the Middle East is par excellence a historical conflict zone. These weapons, so easily delivered, so interesting not just to governments but to people who seek access to them for terrorist and criminal purposes, ought to create a level of concern in the international community which, unfortunately, is not there. We had a focus during the Cold War on the removal of weapons of mass destruction. We have lost the focus; it has gone. We need to refocus on those issues because they are as critical now as they were then—probably even more critical now than it was then, because at least it was under a regime where both sides in those days had established a degree of conservatism in their behaviour with each other. That no longer applies to those states which already have acquired or may over the course of the next few years seek to acquire these weapons. There is no such regime of adversarial partnership applying to them. So the stand that Australia takes on this is very important. When we were in government we always took the international arms control issue seriously. I am glad to see that the government has picked up the ball in this regard and run with it on several occasions over the course of the last couple of years—and evidently in some decisions arrived at today. I would single out my deputy leader in this regard as somebody who spent a great deal of time when he was Foreign Minister of this country putting these issues on the international agenda and ensuring that these questions were pursued. We support this proposition. We hope it is the last time the parliament needs to consider this matter. We hope very much that the agreements that Saddam has entered into will be adhered to by him. We hope that the international community will pursue the enforcement of those agreements with good commonsense and with a degree of substantial
unity. I conclude where I began: by expressing again the opposition's well wishes to and appreciation of the preparedness of our serving men and women to make the sacrifice that they do in defence of the interests of this nation and our people. | Australia | 1,998 |
It is with sadness that I rise to support this motion—I guess the same sadness that I felt on 21 January 1991. At that time I said to the House:. . . it is the duty of this Parliament, quite apart from Cabinet and Government, to return to Canberra this day to debate and discuss the Gulf war and to declare our support for the Australian forces and the multinational coalition of allied forces in the Middle East. Dare I say once again, dear friends, that this is the case again. This commitment of our forces is totally justified, and it is for the elected government and subsequently the elected parliament to affirm this. Our forces go with that spirit of commitment to service and of dedicated efficiency and effectiveness that they have always displayed over the decades. I might add that same type of efficiency and effectiveness was, in a different format, on display last night in Canberra on the occasion of the 50th birthday of the Royal Australian Regiment at the Australian War Memorial and the birthday of the Australian Army. In the course of that function there was a considerable amount of discussion with regard to the latest developments in the Middle East and Iraq, and great and heartfelt support from all ranks for the decisions made by the government, which was pleasing to encounter on that occasion. Let me reiterate that appeasement of Iraq, as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has said, is no solution. It will lead to complete catastrophe in the Middle East. As a Vietnam veteran, I say to the House quite categorically that any comparison between what is happening in the Middle East, then and now, and the Vietnam War is shallow and without foundation. It is a totally different set of circumstances. Our prompt action in joining the US-led coalition in standing up to Saddam Hussein
shows our commitment to peace and to a world free of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. It also shows our commitment to the Middle East region—a historic commitment built over the First World War, the Second World War and on many occasions since. The Middle East region is threatened continually by this dictator Saddam Hussein, who has no respect for the rights of his own people or for the national integrity and sovereignty of Iraq's neighbours. It is not a region which can thrive prosperously and securely in that circumstance. I know there are people in the Middle East who are unhappy about the build-up of arms that have been necessary to induce Saddam Hussein to meet his international obligations. Let me say to those people, to Australians of Middle East origin and to other Australians who care about the Middle East region, as I do, that what we seek is a Middle East region free of fear, secure from this horrendous threat which Saddam Hussein and his weapons constitute. Let me also say to them that we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, who are the foremost and most tragic victims of Saddam Hussein's disregard for human life and welfare. On the contrary, we care about their plight, and we have worked hard to supply, within the limitations of UN sanctions, food and other humanitarian goods which will help them materially, thereby strengthening the links between the Iraqi people and the rest of the word. They have suffered far too much for far too long. We want very much to see the day when the Iraqi people will be free of the privations they have suffered under sanctions. We welcome greatly the increased opportunities which will be available to the Iraqi people under this month's expansion of the UN's oil for food arrangements. But we can only wonder in anger at the callous disregard with which they are treated by Saddam Hussein, who by his wilful non-compliance with UN resolutions is directly responsible for the continuation of the sanctions, just as he is directly responsible for the appalling violations of the human rights of the Iraqi people in which his regime indulges every day. Make no mistake: my concern for the Middle East and its peoples is considerable and longstanding. I have travelled comprehensively throughout the Middle East both as a minister and previously. There are very many people from all countries in the Middle East whom I know well and many I regard as my friends. As minister, I have worked hard to build prosperity and linkages between Australia and the Middle East—trade, investment and tourism linkages—and I will continue to do so. Our trade with the Middle East is now strong, and we will continue to further expand it. On Wednesday, I will produce the second trade outcomes and objectives statement, which will show that, for the first time ever, Iran was our fastest growing export market, in the top 20, last financial year—mainly due to a large wheat sale. Our $3.6 billion of exports across a wide range of sectors to the Middle East counts a great deal. Let me also say emphatically to the House and our export industries: your efforts to develop this export trade will not be blocked by Australia's determination to help resolve this crisis. I therefore welcome the agreement that was forged last week in Baghdad by the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan. I look forward to it being kept. I salute the contributions of all those who made it possible for that agreement to be reached, in particular the contributions of the armed forces and the armed response by the US, the UK and other nations, including Australia. By putting those troops on line we were saying to Saddam, `It is time to get serious; it is time for you to comply with the resolutions of the UN.'I am very proud that Australian soldiers and forces have joined in this brave endeavour. I have great confidence in the competence of the Special Air Services Regiment, the elements thereof committed; the elements of the Royal Australian Air Force refuelling unit, also committed; and the headquarters unit and other resources of the Australian armed forces. We learned a great deal in 1991 in the Gulf War, as did those who served in the Middle East at that time. We do not go to learn, necessarily; we go to make a stand for peace
against weapons of mass destruction and to turn the tide. We look for Saddam Hussein to keep his word. Let him understand fully that, if he does not, our soldiers, along with the forces of our partners, are prepared to hold him to it. We care too much about the Middle East region—its peace, its security and its prosperity—to stand aside when there is so much at stake. I wish the allied forces well. I wish the individual Australians well as the government and the parliament go about the very serious and solemn business of affirming this commitment to this justified cause. | Australia | 1,998 |
One of the most important and encouraging features of last week's events was the reaffirmation of the role of the United Nations in preventing deadly conflict. It is that that I want to emphasise in my remarks in support of this resolution. The United Nations is the only organisation with effectively universal membership that the world has, or is ever likely to have, and the only organisation that is fully, clearly and directly empowered under international law to do as it thinks appropriate—including use military force—in the face of violations of international law. The UN can be paralysed by its own rules and procedures, especially the veto exercisable by permanent Security Council members. It was so paralysed, much to the cost of the world, through most of the Cold War years. With the end of the Cold War, the UN did start to find a new voice and authority, exercised in many ways and many situations but probably to greatest effect in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait—the first great post-Cold War test of the international order and its capacity for cohesive action in response to tyrannical aggression. True it is that it was the United States that supplied the basic energy and fire power in the Gulf War coalition. True it is that without the United States the UN would have been largely impotent. But it was the legitimacy conveyed by the UN Security Council support for the Gulf response that made it possible for that coalition to be assembled and maintained. Of course, it was under UN auspices that UNSCOM, the weapons inspection and
destruction regime, was put in place and has been effectively maintained and backed by an effective—or at least tough—sanctions regime. When Saddam Hussein chose, as he did a few weeks ago, to confront the authority of UNSCOM and the UN, that posed a huge dilemma for the United Nations, for the United States and for the rest of the international community, including Australia. It was absolutely critical for the credibility of the rule of law and for the chances of a civilised international future that nobody blinked; that Saddam be brought back to compliance. The issue of weapons of mass destruction, and in particular chemical and biological weapons, is one of the most crucial that remains to be resolved as we approach the 21st century. Australia has played a critical role in recent years in putting in place the Chemical Weapons Convention, in trying to improve the Biological Weapons Convention and in trying to achieve a genuine nuclear disarmament regime. The credibility of these conventions and the supporting regimes that we have all fought so hard to put in place would have been gravely diminished were Saddam allowed to get away with rendering the UN and UNSCOM impotent. It could not be allowed to happen. But the big question that had to be faced—the big dilemma that had to be faced—by the international community was: would diplomacy be effective; would diplomacy, backed by the existing sanctions regime, be enough? The judgment was made—I think rightly—by the United States and supported, critically, by the UN Secretary-General that diplomacy or mere persuasion not backed by some credible threat of force was not going to be enough. In that context, the US decision to credibly threaten the prospect of such force, to rapidly build up military capability in the Gulf, in conjunction, in effect, with anyone who was prepared to join it, was both understandable and helpful, on the Dr Johnson maxim, if you like, about what is necessary to concentrate people's minds. The extra diplomatic clout that was given by this very real prospect of force was frankly and squarely acknowledged by Kofi Annan
and we ought to recognise it, as this motion does. In the case of Australia, it was our contribution to making credible and effective that diplomatic pressure that remains the best justification for the course that we took. All that said, I think we do have to acknowledge that this was and remains a matter of very fine and balanced judgment as to whether Australia should have joined in this process in the way that we did and at the stage that we did and bearing in mind that we had to face the very real prospect that diplomatic pressure, even backed by this force, may not have been enough, that it would fail and we would actually have to deliver. The arguments were not all one way on this issue and feeling on this issue is not all one way in the Australian community. On the one hand, in favour of the course that was taken were these obvious considerations. Many of them have been mentioned in previous contributions, and I will not labour them at length. It is the case that Saddam Hussein has behaved like an absolute villain in trying to conceal the existence of a continuing chemical and biological weapons regime. It is the case that Saddam has a demonstrated track record of actually using chemical weapons in warfare against his neighbours and against his own people, which puts him in a class absolutely apart from those who have merely acquired mass destructive capability, as reprehensible as that might be. It is the case, as I have already said, that the need to contain and destroy weapons of mass destruction is one of the great remaining issues to be resolved for the 21st century. It is crucial that the credibility—knowing where and how to draw a line of that attempt—be maintained. Sanctions measures so far have proved only to be of relatively limited utility in forcing compliance with the UNSCOM UN regime while at the same time unquestionably doing grave damage to the Iraqi people, damage not being perpetrated of course by the international community but by Saddam Hussein, who continues to resist doing the right thing. Of course also in favour was the point I have been making that the threat of force was obviously going to add an extreme
ly helpful dimension to that diplomatic pressure. But, on the other hand, there was this to be said and it has been said and it needs to be acknowledged: there has been a real problem in identifying realisable, achievable strategic objectives to be accomplished by actual military operations should it have come to that. It is the case that there has been nothing like the same degree of international support this time that there was in 1991, with the prevailing international belief being that Saddam has been sufficiently contained by the efforts of the UN to date and that there is no imminent threat from him at least with his basic delivery systems effectively destroyed. There have been other reasons also advanced to question the US initiative, including the claim of double standards and so on, but the two that I have mentioned are by far the most important of the concerns that have been raised. The point I make is that it has been for everyone involved an `on balance' call, and none of us should pretend otherwise. The opposition believes that it was, on balance, right to give real substance and weight to the diplomatic pressure by creating and applying the realistic threat of force. In the result we can, of course, all be deeply relieved that some very effective diplomacy, particularly by Kofi Annan, created a situation where there is now genuine cause for hope, not only for the avoidance of conflict in the very short term but for the effective compliance once and for all by Iraq with its cease-fire obligations. No-one should be cynical or dismissive about Kofi Annan's and the United Nations achievement. By his actions he averted a horrible conflict, one which would have added yet another layer of immeasurable destruction to the suffering of the Iraqi people that has already gone on for too long because of their utter control by someone who continues to behave like a tyrannical villain, more to his own people in fact than to anyone else. He averted that conflict in a way that was both intelligent and honourable. This was no appeasement. This was no feeble capitulation to someone who stared him down and outma
noeuvred him. Kofi Annan is a quiet understated man. You do not get from him the pyrotechnics of some of his predecessors. But as I have cause to know well personally, he is a brilliant diplomat, he is someone who does not get stared down by anyone, he is nobody's fool and he would never settle for an illusory, dishonourable peace, one that cannot in fact be sustained. As to the future, it is not a matter of last week's events involving a renunciation of the possibility of a military response in the future by the international community if that becomes appropriate and necessary. But what it does mean is that the prospect of deadly conflict is not now imminent. Of course the international community, including Australia, now needs to maintain a close watching brief. But do let us recognise that a lot has been gained and nothing has been lost to the international community in terms of either military advantage or honour by events taking the course that they did. Let us recognise and acknowledge diplomatic success when we see it and let us in particular recognise and acknowledge diplomatic success by the United Nations when we see it. In the world that we are now facing in the 21st century—tumultuous and uncertain, with multiple power centres—we simply cannot afford for the United Nations not to be successful. | Australia | 1,998 |
I begin by saying that the government was naturally enough pleased that an agreement was concluded on 23 February between the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and the government of Iraq. As I and other members of the government have made clear and as our diplomatic record illustrates, we have long advocated that a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis was preferable to military action, with a commensurate commitment by Iraq that it comply in full with its obligations under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. But we have also said all along that, if constructive diplomacy were to fail, the choice would become a choice between military action and doing nothing. Doing
nothing would be to give Saddam Hussein a chance to develop further his weapons of mass destruction capability. From the beginning of this latest crisis the government has done what it could to achieve a diplomatic solution. Obviously, from Australia's perspective, our capacity to do that is somewhat limited. First, we did explain our views very directly to the Iraqi government, urging the Iraqi leadership to honour its commitments under the United Nations Security Council resolutions—in particular, resolution 687. Secondly, in recent weeks we intensified our dialogue with those parties who are actively working towards a peaceful solution—in particular, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Thirdly, in relation to our own region, I wrote to my counterparts setting out our position reiterating Australia's desire for an effective and a credible diplomatic solution backed, if necessary, by force. Iraq's record of honouring its commitments is, as the House knows, not a distinguished one. It will, therefore, be necessary for the United Nations Security Council to nail down the terms of the agreement Iraq signed with Kofi Annan and for UNSCOM and the United Nations to put it to the test before we can be confident that Iraq will in fact meet all of its obligations. Nevertheless, the agreement is an encouraging development and the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, is to be congratulated for his efforts. The government believes that the conclusion of a UN-Iraq agreement vindicates our in-principle decision to participate if necessary in military action and to deploy Australian forces to the Gulf as part of an international coalition. As the United Nations Secretary-General has himself acknowledged, diplomacy can play a vital role in settling disputes,, but it often works best when backed by the threat of force. This is certainly the case with respect to Saddam Hussein's persistent defiance of the United Nations Security Council and his unremitting refusal to meet his obligations. It would not be prudent to remove that threat of force until Saddam Hussein has proved his commitment to honour this latest agreement. For that reason, the
government has appropriately decided that Australian forces in the Gulf will, like other coalition forces, remain in the area until Saddam Hussein matches his words with his deeds. I should like to remind the House of the reasons behind Australia's robust policy towards Iraq's non-compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. Those reasons are clear and persuasive and they follow from long-established principles of Australian foreign and security policy as well as from the evidence of Iraq's behaviour over the past seven years. First, it is a fundamental goal of Australian foreign policy to make every effort to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The recent white paper on Australian foreign and trade policy made it clear that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the major threats, if not the major threat, to global security and that Australia has a strong national interest in preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons and banning chemical and biological weapons. As honourable members know, Australia has a long and successful record of working towards preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction generally, and we have been instrumental in strengthening the global non-proliferation regime with respect to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Our diplomatic efforts and intellectual input were critical to the indefinite extension in 1995 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We played a pivotal role in the adoption in 1996 of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and also in negotiating and finally bringing to fruition the chemical weapons convention. The next major challenge for the international community is to negotiate a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention. In this context, as the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has said, we will be taking a series of initiatives to fast-track the current negotiations in the Ad Hoc Group in Geneva on a verification protocol to the biological weapons convention. We need to take these steps because, despite a legal norm prohibiting the development, production and stockpil
ing of biological weapons being in place for some 25 years, there is no means of verifying effectively countries' compliance. Iraq's violation of this norm by developing a large scale biological weapons program demonstrates the necessity of intensifying the current negotiations and putting in place a stringent verification regime that will ensure that the world is free from the threat of biological warfare. To this end, the government is committed to undertake initiatives which will include convening a high level meeting at either the ministerial or senior officials level to inject the necessary political commitment urgently to resolve outstanding issues and to conclude the negotiations as a matter of priority. For our part, the government would like to see these negotiations concluded by the end of this year. We will also be establishing here in Australia a national advisory group to draw on the expertise of industry, academia and science to ensure that the verification machinery established under the protocol is as effective as possible. It will be another example of Australia putting significant intellectual effort into a disarmament initiative. We intend to work closely with other delegations, in our current capacity as vice-chairman of the negotiations and as coordinator of the western group, to develop a draft protocol text which will allow an early conclusion of the negotiations. The second principle underlying the government's policy towards Iraqi non-compliance is that it is a basic tenet of our foreign policy that the authority of the United Nations Security Council be upheld, because the Security Council is the body mandated by the UN charter with the maintenance of international peace and security. The international system must continue to function on the basis of respect for the rule of law, and the council is one of the principal sources of international law through its legally binding resolutions. It is these resolutions which Iraq has so consistently flouted, including some passed by the Security Council acting under chapter 7 of the charter which envisages enforcement measures including the use of force. Since the end of the Gulf War and the UN Security Council's cease-fire resolution 687 that established UNSCOM and mandated it to verify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has concealed its weapons of mass destruction program and obstructed UNSCOM's activities. This recent crisis is just the latest in a long list of examples of Iraqi intransigence and obfuscation stretching over seven years. In its dealings with Iraq during this time and at international forums, the Australian government has consistently deplored Iraqi non-compliance and made clear that Iraq must comply with all its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions. The third reason underlying the government's policy on Iraq is that, as UNSCOM and the UN Security Council have made abundantly clear, there are good grounds for fears that Iraq may still possess weapons of mass destruction capabilities. For seven years Iraq has undertaken deliberate concealment programs to hide those capabilities. In the absence of continued UNSCOM inspections, Iraq will keep these assets and almost certainly rebuild its weapons of mass destruction inventory. That will constitute a threat not only to the Middle East but to the wider international community. For these reasons, I commend this motion to the House. | Australia | 1,998 |
Last week, with Australia's active support, the United States and the United Kingdom were poised on the brink of conducting what was to be a very substantial military strike against Iraq. The declared objective of such an operation was to destroy or at least substantially reduce Iraq's capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction if they did not immediately comply with the UN Security Council resolutions—those resolutions requiring disclosure and elimination, and unrestricted access. It is fair to say that the threat of military action was not made lightly—and it never should be. Resort to force always involves significant uncertainty and risk. No-one can have any illusions about that. And it would be very foolish to dismiss the likelihood that Iraqi civilians would have paid a dreadful price. I join with the Deputy Prime Minister
(Mr Tim Fischer) in respect of the sentiments he expressed about the civilians of Iraq and the differentiation between the civilians of Iraq and the Iraqi regime. Although any air offensive would have been conducted to minimise civilian casualties, and certainly precision guidance technology has advanced in leaps and bounds in recent years, the fact remains that the only thing `surgical' about the use of air power is what happens in the hospitals afterwards. No-one can be enthusiastic or cavalier in threatening military action, but it was clearly necessary and appropriate to compel Iraq to comply with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. These resolutions include resolution 687, the Gulf War cease-fire resolution requiring the disclosure and destruction, under international supervision, of these weapons; and resolution 707, which requires Iraq to provide UNSCOM and the IAEA with immediate unconditional and unrestricted access. These requirements are not arbitrary demands of the United States of America. They are essential requirements for effective verification demanded by the Security Council through resolutions that are binding in international law. Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM immediate and unrestricted access constitutes a most serious challenge, indeed a complete and direct challenge, to the authority of the United Nations. It was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the 1991 cease-fire—terms which had been explicitly accepted by Iraq. Faced with such a breach, the United States and the United Kingdom were clearly entitled to look back to the underlying resolution—that is, resolution 678, which authorised the use of all necessary means to liberate Kuwait and `to restore international peace and security in the area'. Resolution 678 is still in force. The threat of military action was justified, given Iraq's undeniable record as a rogue state. Saddam Hussein has never hesitated to use military force to pursue his objectives. He has twice gone to war in pursuit of his ambitions of regional dominance—first against Iran and then against Kuwait. In the history of the United Nations only one member state has ever attempted to completely overpower and
annex another member—and that country is Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His is a regime with an extraordinary record of aggression, of treachery, of duplicity and of gross abuse of human rights. It is a regime which routinely resorts to appalling violence to achieve its ends and at the end of the day appears to respect only the threat of military force. The threat of military action was further justified by the continuing threats to the security of the Middle East, indeed to world security, by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Others have spoken of that today, but no-one must underestimate it. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that the international community owes a great deal of debt to UNSCOM and both its first executive chairman and, more latterly, our own Richard Butler, who has served with great determination. Indeed, I say in respect of Ambassador Butler, it is a continuation of his record as a representative of the highest integrity, skill and professionalism. As matters stand, Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM unrestricted access has left many serious concerns unresolved. I do not think there can be any doubt that, given the chance, Iraq would resume production and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons. No-one should forget that Iraq is unique in recent history in its repeated use of chemical weapons against Iran, against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and against resistance forces in southern Iraq. Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to do so again if he thought it would advance his interests. So where are we today? I join with other speakers in expressing our highest praise of and gratitude to Kofi Annan for his efforts in securing Iraq's agreement to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA the immediate unconditional and unrestricted access that is required by those Security Council resolutions. His standing has undoubtedly and I think quite properly been enhanced by the outcome of his mission to Baghdad and his splendid advocacy. Having said that, I do not think anyone can pretend that this agreement would have been secured in the absence of a real threat of
military action—a fact that has been publicly acknowledged by the Secretary-General himself. The question now facing the world is whether Saddam Hussein can be trusted to implement the agreements reached with the United Nations. In all this, I think British Prime Minister Tony Blair got it right when he said: While the agreement signed in Baghdad is welcome, it is not in itself enough. A piece of paper signed by the Iraqi regime plainly cannot be enough. The Saddam Hussein we face today is the same Saddam Hussein we faced yesterday. The only thing that has changed is that he has changed his mind in the face of effective diplomacy and firm willingness to use force. Clearly there can be no slackening in our determination to ensure that Iraq complies with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Full and immediate implementation of the Baghdad agreements is what will count, and no-one can rule out the possibility that the threat of military action may still be required to ensure that Iraq fulfils its obligations and undertakings. I would like to conclude my remarks today by drawing attention to the final paragraph of the motion before the House. This paragraph was added at Labor's suggestion. It states: That this House:(5) looks forward to the satisfactory completion of the work of UNSCOM . . . as a major contribution to world security and as an important step towards achieving a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction, as recognised in Resolution 687.Iraq is undeniably a special case. It is a rogue state which has amassed this dreadful arsenal and it is engaged in aggression. It has repeatedly used these weapons of mass destruction and it has flagrantly denied the United Nations. That said, we must also recognise that Iraq is not the only state in the Middle East to be the subject of international concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Many people have made references to Israel's nuclear capabilities and one cannot ignore the reported ambitions of other states, including Iran and Syria, to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The elimination of Iraq's terror arsenal is clearly only one part
of what is required to guarantee long-term peace and security in the Middle East. Some critics have suggested that Saddam Hussein is the winner in the latest crisis. I do not believe this is so. But, given the trend in Arab public opinion and the widespread perception of double standards on the part of the United States and its allies, it is incumbent on all members of the international community, including Australia, to do everything we can to encourage a resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and to resolve each of the other outstanding Middle East issues—issues including the withdrawal of all foreign military forces and foreign-sponsored militias from Lebanon. A Middle East policy perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, as solely focusing on Iraq and failing to adopt an even-handed approach to each of the issues of peace and security in the region will ultimately fail to secure the necessary international and regional support. I put it to the House that it would be a pyrrhic victory indeed if we successfully contained Saddam Hussein but neglected the wider issues of peace, security and justice throughout the Middle East. | Australia | 1,998 |
In putting together the coalition in 1991, President Bush, I am told, in the broad put a simple message, five binding points, to those leaders that he approached. The prevention of incursions into Saudi Arabia was the first point. The second was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The third was to render the Iraqi military machine ineffective. The fourth was to capture or otherwise bring before the international justice machine Saddam Hussein, and the fifth was to go home. I think, as has been outlined in this House by a number of people and put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), the unfinished business probably still surrounds two of those five points. The decision the government took to deploy military forces to the Gulf is in keeping with the record of Australia's constructive involvement in issues important to global security. Our involvement shows that our security interests go well beyond the physical protection of our territory. Global issues, too, can
have significant security implications for us. So our priority in this current crisis is to ensure that Iraq complies with the relevant Security Council resolutions. We have actively and consistently, for as many years as I can remember, supported the UN efforts to stop the proliferation of weapons and people who behave like Saddam Hussein. It is directly, therefore, in this nation's interest to make sure that the world community works to stop such proliferation. In an act which nearly can be described as fratricide, the killing of one's own brothers and sisters, Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction against his own people in gassing in 1988 the Kurds in the north of his country. It is reasonable to believe—in fact, one can only conclude—that he would use these weapons again. So, if the world community failed in its resolve to stop this country from rebuilding its capacity to make these weapons of mass destruction, it would be derelict in its duty indeed. I have no doubt that the agreement reached between Secretary Annan and Saddam Hussein would not have been made without the pressure brought to bear by the gathering of the coalition military forces. It is a clear example of where diplomacy needed the backing of military power to have real effect. Australia's role in the building of this military response was both measured and timely. We are encouraged by the agreement. But, just as the negotiation of that agreement needed the support of the international coalition of military forces, so does the testing of that agreement require those forces to stay in place. We cannot judge the success of this agreement until it has been tested by UNSCOM demanding and receiving unconditional and unrestricted access to potential weapons of mass destruction sites. That means that we must keep Australian forces in the Gulf theatre working with the international coalition to ensure Iraqi compliance. I do not think anyone should assume that if this fails we can put together a coalition again some time in the future. I want to say just a few words about the defence organisation's role in the last few weeks both in helping to shape the govern
ment's response and in being a key part of that response. Apart from our Gulf commitment, we have been involved in the last few months in floods and bushfires, in supporting drought relief operations in Papua New Guinea and truce monitoring in Bougainville, and in sovereignty and fishing protection issues in the sub-Antarctic. In many respects the Australian defence organisation is at its best when it is asked to do things at short notice. I would like to say in this House that the ADF deserves praise for the speed with which it has presented the military options to government and for the even greater speed with which the military deployment was mounted. Defence and government worked hard to put together a package of forces which would be militarily relevant, highly relevant to possible operations and relevant to Australia's place in the world—not too grand, but not a token offer. I reject the view that some have put that the involvement of the SAS, the air force and other elements was simply some form of gesture. I notice that there is some misinformation about the fact that the Chief of the Defence Force said that the operation was a token gesture. He did not say it and he does not believe it. There was some selective juggling, even mischievous juggling, of a TV report which put those words in his mouth. What he did do was to make the point that this decision, like the one taken in 1991, was not a token gesture. There is no doubt that these people will serve with distinction and to the very best of their abilities. On this occasion and the last the government held the view that our national interest and our commitment to global stability mean that we cannot walk away from the prospect of conflict. It is not an easy decision but the decision was made both times. This matter is not simply a matter of a new set of arrangements which arise out of the Secretary-General's deal with Iraq. That set of arrangements gives Saddam Hussein a little more time to comply, but absolutely and unequivocally requires the carriage and implementation of the previous resolutions 678, and 687 in particular. Iraq must accept an all encompassing UNSCOM inspection
regime and their total compliance must be absolute. Let us all hope that that compliance is forthcoming. Finally, we have sent to the Gulf a fine combination of defence men and women whose quality and level of training will stand them and Australia in good stead. Therefore, the Australian government, and I glean this House, will give them the level of support to which that body of elite young Australians are entitled. | Australia | 1,998 |
I join with previous speakers in this debate in supporting the motion before the House. The events in Iraq over the last couple of months are the latest in a round of what has been a long series of difficulties since the 1991 war that removed Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. It should be recalled that the commitments that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime entered into at that time, which were to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from their arsenal and to enable UNSCOM to verify that and where necessary to undertake the elimination of those weapons, have been honoured in the breach on many occasions since that time. The regime in Iraq has done everything it can since that time to avoid the commitments it gave in settlement of that dispute. Saddam Hussein has systematically frustrated the work of UNSCOM. He has lied about his weapons of mass destruction and he has played a game of cat and mouse with the rest of the world. Not all of the incidents that have occurred since 1991 are widely known nor have they been reported in the popular media but they are significant and should be noted in the parliament. For example, Baghdad has revised its nuclear declaration that it is obliged to provide to the International Atomic Energy Agency on no fewer than four occasions. Each time a new return is submitted it is following exposure of errors and omissions and wrongful statements in the previous one. Iraq has formally submitted some six different biological warfare declarations, the most recent of which was in September of last year, and all of those six have been rejected by UNSCOM as inaccurate. Indeed, the UNSCOM chairperson, Richard Butler, has
said of the latest return that `it failed to give a remotely credible account of Iraq's biological weapons program'. We have here a systematic effort on the part of Saddam Hussein and his regime to hide serious weapons of mass destruction to ensure that he maintains the capability of renewing those weapons and maintaining some of them in stock. That has been a systematic activity undertaken since 1991 by that regime in spite of the undertakings given to the United Nations. In fact, for much of the time since 1991, the Iraqi regime, in defiance of its undertakings to the United Nations, has denied that some of those weapons of mass destruction remain, claiming that they had been used in the seven year war with Iran or against the Kurds or independently destroyed under Saddam Hussein's own authority. It was only in 1995 with the defection of his son-in-law Hussein Kamel that Iraq admitted that it had stocks of some of these weapons. His son-in-law was well placed to know because he had been Minister for Defence at different times. He had also been the Director of the Ministry of Industry and Minerals and of the Organisation of Military Industrialisation. In short, his son-in-law was in charge of military industrialisation in Iraq and was responsible for ensuring the production of these very weapons, their storage and their hiding from inspectors. It was only in August 1995 with his defection that the Iraqi regime decided to own up to its possession of some of these weapons. It is worth recording the extent of the arsenal which Saddam Hussein and his regime have amassed. These are the figures that the regime admits it has produced. We are talking about large amounts of very dangerous materials. The regime admits to 100 to 150 metric tonnes of G-agents, which I am advised is the sarin gas that the public would be aware of from the Tokyo experience. There are 500 to 600 metric tonnes of mustard gas and four metric tonnes of VX. UNSCOM have been able to identify the importation and manufacture of precursors to the manufacture of VX which would account for 200 metric tonnes. Saddam Hussein acknowledges having
four metric tonnes of it, none of which, by the way, he said he had until his son-in-law defected in August 1995.The regime acknowledges 8,500 litres of anthrax; UNSCOM's estimate is that the actual figure for anthrax biological capability is three to four times the declared amount. There are 19,400 litres of botulinum toxin; UNSCOM's estimates of the actual amount produced by the Saddam Hussein regime is double that. It is also worth recording that he maintains a series of delivery systems for those weapons, many of which have not been accounted for by UNSCOM.Faced with that, the UNSCOM inspectors have tried valiantly over the course of the last seven years to visit the suspected sites and to ensure the elimination of these very dangerous chemical and biological weapons. Saddam Hussein has sought to declare a number of those sites as sensitive; and these are not just the palaces that we read about: on occasions they have included Republican Guard barracks and even a road which he declared as sensitive to prevent UNSCOM inspectors from travelling along it. If you read the reports of UNSCOM investigations, you find that when they go into these buildings, having been delayed for hours and in some cases for days, they walk into premises that have been totally cleaned out, with the obvious marks of furniture left on the floor, whether it is the carpet, the lino or the tiles—the furniture clearly having been removed only hours or days prior to that and in the period, of course, following the delay that has been imposed upon the inspectors. We enter this post-Cold War period after the fall of the Berlin Wall, having come through a period of about 40 years in which the world was living in fear of a mutually assured destruction regime that was based upon nuclear weapons. As we go into the 21st century, after that mutually assured destruction approach to global security, we confront what is in many respects a far more dangerous threat. The threat in the 21st century to countries around the world is from chemical and biological weapons. They are weapons of mass destruction: the extent of the harm which they can produce is on a scale with
nuclear weapons. They are, however, much easier to produce, they are far easier to conceal and they are far more difficult to detect under regimes of international agreements. Mention has been made of the need to improve the verification processes under the international conventions in relation to chemical and biological weapons. That is clearly something the world needs to turn its attention to. These are not things that are easy or even possible to detect by remote purposes; it requires physical presence in the locations to identify the existence of some of these biological and chemical weapons. The simple fact of the matter is that with Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime we know that there are very substantial quantities of these weapons in stock. We know that he has a history of using them, not once but many times over the course of a decade through the eighties and into the early nineties—using them in the war with Iran and using them in his own campaign against minority groups in his own country. Before my time runs out I also want to make some comments in support of the other comments that have been made in respect of the Australian forces who are currently on deployment in the Middle East. As the Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) has said, we have in the defence forces a very fine body of men and women whose dedication to the cause of Australia and their willingness to accept personal inconvenience and, in these situations, place their lives in circumstances of danger have again provided the government with an option in diplomacy and in military activity which has been needed. The members of the Special Air Services Regiment are, without doubt, amongst the finest people wearing a military uniform anywhere in the world. I was in the United States when these events unfolded, and it is the case that their reputation is well known throughout the United States in military and other circles. I wish them all what I hope is a peaceful journey and a speedy and safe return to Australia. I join with other members in trusting that Kofi Annan's very good diplomacy, supported by the threat of military
action, will see a peaceful outcome to what has been a very difficult seven years of enforcement of the UN decisions. | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise to offer my support for this motion but with some grave concerns that are represented in a large body of the Australian public about our commitment to this particular force. I would like to speak on behalf of those Australians who have those reservations. Not for a moment do any Australians, I believe, question the commitment and bravery of those troops who have been committed to Kuwait at this stage, and we all pray that Kofi Annan's quite courageous efforts will result in a peaceful resolution to this. But I just ask, as many Australians do and as some speakers have alluded to today, in this case, unlike that in 1991 when I personally strongly supported the actions taken, where there is no invasion involved and no United Nations mandate for such action, where there is no cross-religious coalition of forces aligned against Saddam, whether this exercise—should it have gone on without Kofi Annan's intervention—would have risked a huge potential to ignite forces of destruction right across the Middle East. We know the weapons of mass destruction are a very real threat and we know that Saddam Hussein has in his arsenal weapons that he has already used against the Kurds, but what I ask—as do many Australians and people around the world—is what are we doing about Israel's 300 nuclear weapons and Syria's suspected chemical arsenal? Iran, too, is believed to have such weapons. Pakistan has the bomb. As for Libya, who knows? How about the United Nations resolution on Israel's occupation of Arab lands? Double standards abound in international affairs and, while not for a moment do any of us condone Iraq's attempt to annexe Kuwait, where does Australia stand in terms of Indonesia's annexation of East Timor? Is oil the common factor in this? Where did Iraq obtain many of its weapons? I would like to read briefly into Hansard part of an article by Robert Fisk in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 February:. . . 1980, when Saddam invaded Iran—an offensive infinitely more devastating and savage than his
later invasion of Kuwait, for which the West went to war a decade later. I recall that first ghastly Gulf War all too well because I spent month after month visiting the battlefields: I hid in waterlogged ditches with Iraqi troops along the Shatt al-Arab river . . . I flew in an Iranian helicopter gunship over Saddam's slaughtered legions outside Ahwaz, the stench of their decomposition so powerful we reeled with nausea in our tiny helicopter as it hurtled over the mass graves. And over those awful months, I and my colleagues slowly learned who had armed Saddam. In a field north of the Iraqi city of Basra, I discovered rows of American crop-spraying helicopters. Only the spray was poison and the crops were to be Iranians. I found British radios and Bailey bridges in the hands of Saddam's army. In the middle of the Persian Gulf, I saw the Iraqis attack an Iranian-registered oil tanker with a new Mirage fighter-bomber lent by France.. . . . . . . . .But my grimmest memory is of a long and terrible train, 20 carriages long, that rumbled slowly out from the Ahwaz battlefront with a cargo of dying Iranians soldiers and Revolutionary Guards. It was a hospital train, and in compartment after compartment sat—and lay—these young men, all coughing their lungs up into bandages and gauze and dirty handkerchiefs, all victims of Saddam Hussein's mustard gas. That gas—we were later to learn—came from Germany . . . We created the monster of Baghdad. He goes on: It is as well to remember that the real trials in the Middle East, the real potential explosion, is in the collapse and death of the Oslo "peace process", a calamity that has left Israelis and Arabs on the brink of war with each other. The "crisis" over weapons inspection in Iraq has served to divert attention from this colossal blunder in US foreign policy. . . . Washington betrayed [the Arab states] by persuading them to accept an Israeli-Arab peace and then letting Israel go on building Jewish settlements on stolen Arab land.. . . . . . . . .There is now no Western-Arab coalition against Iraq, just a bunch of Christian armies poised to attack a Muslim state—to the suppressed fury of the rest of the Arab world. The 1991 Allied attack, combined with the effects of sanctions, is responsible for the deaths of half a million children officially, and it could be double that. Smart bombs and surgical strikes are sick misnomers. The massacre on the Basra Road, the suffering of
the poor and ignorant—sanctions do not hurt Saddam and his coterie, they kill the innocent. The US has unseated regimes in the past; surely it could isolate and eliminate Saddam without a blitzkrieg against suspected agents that could be made and stored in a suburban garage or a hospital or a preschool by this man. We should be encouraging a democratic government in exile for Iraq. We should be using the US's vast resources to destabilise Saddam and his fanatical son and his hangers-on. We should, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said, mount a consistent across-the-board approach to all violators, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) alluded to that as well. These are the tactics we should encourage. Let us pray that Kofi Annan's miracle of diplomacy does prevail and that the US can swallow some pride and back the Security Council's endorsement of the agreement. The alternative could well be a Middle East war, given the Israeli PM's predilections, and we in our small way would be partly responsible for that outcome if we jumped to America's bidding alone. Saddam is a butcher, but surely the US can eliminate his regime without eliminating another million innocent Iraqis. | Australia | 1,998 |
He says it is rubbish. It is not rubbish that we now have the lowest inflation rate in the world. It is not rubbish that in two years time we will have halved the debt to GDP ratio that we inherited from you. It is not rubbish that you left us a $10½ billion deficit and we will be budgeting for a surplus in three or four months time. It is not rubbish that we have presided over interest rate reductions that are the equivalent of a $90 to $100 a week wage increase for the average Australian wage earner. They are undeniable facts. There is no rubbish about that. Over the past couple of months we have seen capital expenditure figures demonstrating the strong confidence of the Australian business community in the future prospects of the Australian economy. We have seen only last Friday in the area of tourism, where there were legitimate grounds for concern, a dramatic rebound in the month of January in the wake of the rather disappointing figures for November and December. Building approvals are now 20 per cent higher than a year ago and, despite the strength of the economy, wage and price pressures remain subdued. Average weekly ordinary time earnings rose by 3.7 per cent over the year to November 1997—well within the RBA's wages growth target range. The other good economic news that has occurred since the parliament last sat includes the very positive industry policy statement
that I delivered two days after the parliament rose. That is seen by the business community of Australia as a strong and balanced response to the needs of the Australian business community. But it does not stop there. Perhaps the opposition would not like to be reminded of something called a `climate change conference' that was held at Kyoto where the member for Denison, at the critical stage, wanted Australia to sign off on a figure that would have reduced our GDP by 1½ per cent. You were prepared, along with your mates—despite the fact that you were a member of the Australian delegation that went to Tokyo—to sign off on something which would have sold out Australia's interests. I am pleased to report that since the parliament last met there has been an absolute plethora of indications that the Australian economy is fundamentally strong but, most important of all, the judgment of my government in taking the corrective measures it has has insulated the Australian economy and through it the Australian people against the growing economic troubles in the Asia-Pacific region. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his question. I think the Australian public is going to be interested in key issues during the course of this year: key issues like interest rates, job opportunities and taxation possibilities—all of the kinds of things that you will never hear a question from the Australian Labor Party about. They go off on all these little tangential issues because they cannot face the big ones. They cannot bring themselves to face the big issues. Two years ago the unemployment rate was 8.5 per cent; in January it was down to 8.2 per cent. Two years ago the CPI was 5.1 per cent; now it is actually negative—0.2 per cent. Two years ago growth was at 3.4 per cent; over the year to September it was 4.6 per cent. Two years ago variable mortgage rates were 10.5 per cent, and today they are 6.5 per cent. Two years ago the budget was
in a $10.3 billion deficit. Over two budgets we have clawed back $7½ billion and, if the Australian Labor Party is unsuccessful in its strategy, next year we can put Australia into the black. Notwithstanding the Australian Labor Party's paltry attempts to stop Australia getting back to paying its own way, this government will be able to make a bold claim: we took the failures of Beazley as finance minister and we turned them around. I was absolutely amazed to see the failed finance minister, in his first economic speech and at his own invitation—he invited himself up to the CEDA conference recently—claim that, if he were elected back, he would deliver three years of surplus budgets. His problem is, he has a thing called `form'. He was a finance minister in 1994-95 and his outcome was negative $13.1 billion. He was a finance minister in 1995-96 and his outcome was negative $10.3 billion. This is the man who, in two years of form, ran up $23 billion worth of deficits. But re-elect him and he will produce a surplus every year—every single year—notwithstanding all of the expenditure cuts he opposes and notwithstanding the tax policy that he opposes! The only surplus he has ever delivered was a surplus of false promises in relation to the budget position. This is the man who said before the last election that the budget was in surplus. He says now that he will do it again, and he has $23 billion to prove it. | Australia | 1,998 |
In 1990 and 1991 you were failing as an employment minister because it was then that you presided over an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. You not only failed as a finance minister; you were also a miserable failure as an employment minister. In 1991 you drove unemployment in this country to a post-Depression high. While the Leader of the Opposition, in those years, was failing as an employment minister, his then colleague Senator Richardson who was the health minister warned the Hawke and Keating governments that, if something was not then done when private health insurance was sitting at 39 to 40 per cent of the total population, there would be a further inexorable decline. Quite deliberately and maliciously the Keating government, aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition, set out to destroy private health insurance in Australia. It was your neglect in your years in government, when you could have done something to stabilise that level, that has created the problem that we are now grappling with. If we had not introduced those tax incentives, then the level of private health insurance would have been much lower than what it is now. If your policies were adopted, the situation would be a lot more serious than what it is now. You have no alternative health policy, as you have no alternative taxation policy. You simply believe that by running a fear cam
paign you can induce the Australian people to forget your deplorable record as a failed finance minister, your deplorable record as a failed employment minister— | Australia | 1,998 |
What this survey from the Australian Stock Exchange shows is that some 559,000 Australians have invested, through Telstra, for the very first time in the share market; that some 14.2 per cent of the adult population now have some interest in shares—and, of course, we know that 92 per cent of the employees of Telstra have invested in the company through the employee share ownership plan. We know, again, that Labor does not like Australians making their own investment decisions, and they would do well to take note of this survey and what it shows in respect of the levels of share ownership in lower income levels of households. This survey shows that 45 per cent of households with incomes of between $30,000 and $50,000 per annum have some shareholding; it also shows that 30.9 per cent of those households are direct investors in shares. It is interesting to note the trend towards younger Australians investing on the market, because something like one-third of those aged between 25 and 34 are investors on the share market, and more than one-half—in fact, 52.1 per cent—of those between 35 and 44 are investors. A good sign again: females have increased in their share market investments from some 28.2 per cent nine months ago to 36.2 per cent now. It is also interesting to note that, since Telstra listed on the share market, some 96.2 per cent of all who invested in shares have held those shares; those who have invested have realised that this is a good long-term investment. What this survey shows is very good news. It shows that an ever increasing number of Australians are choosing to take control of their own savings and investment. But, of course, we know that perhaps one of the groups that does not seek to welcome it as good news is the Australian Labor Party. All I can do there is to suggest to the Australian Labor Party that they might seek advice from those two members of the Labor Party who have invested—Senators Crowley and McKiernan from another place—who no
doubt opposed, like all the other Labor members opposite, the sale of the Telstra shares and then, we note from the register, have chosen to purchase some shares in the company—very sensible people. If they do not want to take advice from those two, they should perhaps have a look at the article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph from former Senator Stephen Loosley. I will not go into it in too much detail but just commend it to the Labor Party to read. But I will tell you the headline—`Telstra policy could cost Labor'. Mr Speaker, it certainly will. | Australia | 1,998 |
That is a really big problem for the Australian Labor Party, but it is not all of the Australian Labor Party. There are people in the Australian Labor Party who do support tax reform. There are some people who are progressive and modern thinking; just as the Leader of the Opposition was in 1985 when he was last in favour of taxation reform; just as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was—and who is nodding now—in 1985; and just as Senator George Campbell is, for example. He said that Australia ought to have
a decent debate on improving our taxation system. Mr Speaker, the coalition government wants to improve Australia's taxation system. Why does the Labor Party support a 22 per cent tax on toothbrushes and no tax on caviar? Why do you support that? Why does the Labor party refuse to try to address the anomalies in the sales tax system? Why does the Labor Party, for example, support indirect taxes on Australia's exports? Why does the Labor Party support that? Why does the Labor Party refuse to join with the government in relation to reforming that? I will tell you why, Mr Speaker. The Labor Party supports an unfair taxation system because the Labor Party presided over and created it over the last 13 years. You do not want reform it because it is your system. I welcome the fact that the Evatt Foundation—no great friend of this government—has come out and said this. And I do not want it to be heavied either; no midnight phone calls like Father Frank Brennan is getting! The Evatt Foundation knows that it is important that we reform and improve Australia's taxation system. I do welcome the fact that the Evatt Foundation is prepared to open its mind, embrace change and try to improve Australia's taxation system. The one really significant figure in Australia now standing against tax reform is the Leader of the Opposition. What a career! As an employment minister, he gets 11 per cent unemployment so they make him a finance minister; as a finance minister, he gets $23 billion worth of deficit so they make him a leader of the opposition; and as Leader of the Opposition he stands with only the lonely in opposing tax reform in this country, which is important for all Australians to give them fairness. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the member for his question. I am delighted to be able to say to the House that the introduction of the new competitor on the Australian waterfront as we started 1998—the operation by those associated with the NFF; the new business known as P&C Stevedoring—has got off to a very good start. I am delighted to be able to say to P&C Stevedoring that those on this side of the House support their initiatives to start up a new business. We say that, as far as the rorts and rip-offs on the waterfront are concerned, enough is enough. It is time we had some real competition so that Australia can benefit in our export businesses, as can all of those businesses that rely on an efficient waterfront. The waterfront is the gateway to the economy. We must have an efficient gateway. We must have a system on the waterfront which gives our exporters and others the opportunity to compete in world markets. When I say that they have made a good start, what have they done? They have set up a management structure, have secured the site to set up a viable operation and have the equipment necessary to conduct their business. The opposition leader referred to the question of the lease—he is a bit behind the times because that matter was settled a week or so ago. They have trainees on site and, despite the intimidation of some initial trainers, they now have trainers looking to the accreditation of 30 or 40 trainees. Why it is important is that Australia's crane rates and productivity levels are woeful. The reliability on the Australian waterfront is a national disgrace. It was the international
shippers who last year voted Australia as the least reliable port to send a ship to. Also, if we had better workplace relations on the Australian waterfront, we would also have a safer environment for the shippers themselves. That is a worthy objective in itself. All this has happened for a number of reasons—principally because the government has made significant reforms to the Workplace Relations Act, to the industrial relations system in Australia, to allow anybody to set up a new business if they so desire. As we look at this new business, we see the various facets of our new legislation operating. You would not have been able to set up this business but for the fact that you can enter into an Australian workplace agreement and have a much more flexible and efficient set of operations. We made AWAs available. In the early days of this dispute, we saw the MUA taking industrial action. They were told to go back to work by the commission under section 127, which is a new power we gave to the commission that requires people to meet their obligations. Of course, there are the Cheryl clauses—the Trade Practices Act reforms which place a ban on secondary boycotts and primary boycotts and which are the reason that today Australia is not in a state of national economic paralysis. Imagine if Labor got in in the future, or go back a few years when they were in and we had such a development: the whole place would be brought to a standstill. The reality is that those are very effective sanctions. Labor's policy, if they were ever to be re-elected, would be to take the MUA off the leash, to take the Trade Practices Act prohibitions out of that particular law and to gut them and make them ineffective. There has been very widespread community support for what the farmers are undertaking—not just within the farming community, where the polls show over 90 per cent support amongst the farming community, but in the community at large. A Sydney Morning Herald survey reported on 4 February that 60 per cent of all Australians support the establishment of a non-union alternative on the waterfront, and it showed also that 41 per cent of Labor voters support this move. There
will be lots of opportunities to talk about the golden silence from the other side. I see that the shadow minister is about to jump, so I will move onto that presentation of mine as the opportunity is provided. I say in conclusion that this is one of the things that has to be done in Australia. We must have a more efficient waterfront. The new act, the new legislative prescriptions and the support that this government will give people prepared to set up a new business and to be competitive are the critical elements that will make this a successful venture. On behalf of all members on this side of the House, I say to those who have started a new business and who are working on it: good on you and we support you. | Australia | 1,998 |
We must get that straight. You had 13 years to amend the law to give them a better deal and you did not. Now you have the hide to come along and say, `Why doesn't the coalition do this and why doesn't the coalition do that?' I will tell you something that the coalition is doing. The coalition, through the ASC, is ensuring that legal action is being taken so that, if there is any evidence that there has been a breach of directors' duties, those directors will be brought to account. The proposition that in some way there should be an even higher gradation of preference given would, as I think you know and many on the frontbench know, interfere very
significantly with the whole basis on which loans are made available and on which security is being given. The alternative that has been suggested—that some kind of trustee guarantee system be introduced similar to what operates in other countries—is one that we are looking at but it does start with the enormous disability that it would involve contributions from companies that treat their employees decently and properly and it would probably impose burdens on many honest, soundly based companies that it would be unreasonable to do. I think it is an extraordinarily unfortunate situation. We are examining ways in which bona fide help can be given without creating difficult precedents. Let it be remembered that the disability under the law that they are complaining about is a disability under your law and nobody else's. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the honourable member for his question. There is no doubt that the Natural Heritage Trust constitutes perhaps the most far-reaching response ever put together in this country and maybe even globally to the twin problems of land degradation and water degradation. If there is one thing the ALP hates more than good policy, it is good policy that becomes popular policy because it works. They cannot stand it. It is even worse if it happens to apply to those people who live between Katoomba and Kalgoorlie because they are not interested in them. Let us get to a few facts on this. The first I would like to cover is that the funding has been directed mainly to community groups undertaking on-ground works. Secondly, the
NHT is designed to address the causes of environmental decline, not the symptoms. Thirdly, it is a rigorous community based assessment process—demonstrably so—where regional and state assessment processes prioritise applications. The next point that needs to be understood by those opposite, because no-one on this side has any trouble understanding it, is that the land, water and vegetation challenges facing Australia are overwhelmingly in regional and rural areas. I will give a few statistics. A total of 95 per cent of the funds from the 1997-98 funding round were committed to 99 per cent of Australia's land service. In fact, the ALP only holds 1.17 per cent of the land mass of Australia. The way they are going, they will be lucky to maintain even that. Given their position on this and given their position on tax reform, when everyone in the bush wants tax reform, and given their position on Wik, I cannot see them increasing the percentage of the land mass they hold in this country. You may as well get used to it. There are other factors. The documentation on the trust has always clearly indicated that the bulk of funds would be spent in the areas of greatest need, such as the $163 million committed to the Murray Darling Basin. How much of the Murray Darling Basin in area does the ALP hold? Two per cent. In the case of Western Australia, funds were directed overwhelmingly to the salinity action plant. Anybody who comes from Western Australia would know that that is the issue that needs to be confronted over there. It happens to be focused mainly in Western Australia's wheat belt, where the ALP has no representation at all. | Australia | 1,998 |
That is right. It is worth noting too that funds expended—stop and think about this for a moment—in important areas such as landcare, bushcare, world heritage, Cape York and rivercare in the end have almost no hope of falling in ALP electorates because there are so few of them. That does not really matter anyway because the money is spent where it needs to be spent and that does not necessarily mean that that is
where the benefits will accrue. This is a very important point. The opposition's flippancy with regard to this highlights the fact that their interests are political, not environmental. For instance, to get cleaner water in Adelaide requires extensive work to be done in the Murray Darling catchment in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. You do not spend the money in urban seats in Adelaide to get the benefits for the residents of Adelaide with regard to cleaner, more secure water supplies; you spend it in the Murray Darling Basin. Who are the beneficiaries? As much the people of urban Adelaide as anyone else. There are a couple of other important facts that I want to get on the record. On checking the figures, it has been revealed that 90 per cent of all recommendations of the state assessment panels were from projects in coalition electorates. Let me spell that out for a moment. In the case of New South Wales, of the applications that they put forward for expenditure—and that is not a coalition government, in case you have missed it—89 per cent of their recommendations were for expenditure in coalition seats. | Australia | 1,998 |
I think one thing that is very clear out of that question and out of this whole exercise is that the Labor Party hates spending $1 billion on Australia's environment. The central thing to understand about this is that the Labor Party is totally and utterly opposed to the expenditure of so much money on the environment. As to the particular proposal that was made, let me say that I am satisfied—I will of course investigate the particular proposal that has been put forward—and have an enormous amount of confidence in the Minister for the Environment. Is the opposition seriously suggesting that, in something of this character, it is never possible on the merits for somebody or some company that has an identification with one side of politics to be the recipient? That is basically what is being alleged by those who sit opposite that Let me say to those who sit opposite, I am naturally not aware of the particulars of the claim that has been raised by the member for Denison.
I will make some investigations and come back to the House. I take this opportunity of reminding the House again that the establishment of the Natural Heritage Trust was opposed tooth and nail by the Labor Party. This Natural Heritage Trust was designed to address the major environmental problems faced by Australia. As the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy said, those major environmental problems are overwhelmingly in the rural and provincial areas of Australia. It is axiomatic that if you are going to address those major problems you are going to spend most of the money in those areas. I have every confidence in the way in which the whole fund has been administered. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the member for Murray for her question. The government, as it is now becoming absolutely plain to everybody, is delivering on its commitment to provide Australians with real jobs. Over the last five months, we have seen 140,000 new jobs coming through—116,000 of which were full time. That compares with 16,000 new full-time jobs in the last six years of the Labor government. Last Thursday I announced the outcome of a $1.7 billion tender to replace the CES from 1 May with Job Network, a new national network of 306 private community and government organisations competing with each other to get unemployed people into jobs. This is one of the major social justice reforms of the last 50 years. It shows this government's deep commitment to assisting the most disadvantaged in this community. It contrasts dramatically with the spending and taxing policies of the previous government which churned the unemployed through the $10 billion Working Nation program. Job Network is going to give unemployed people the best possible chance at getting a real job. It will offer tens of thousands more vacancies on the Job Network than has been offered through the CES, which had only 20 per cent of vacancies. It will provide four times as many sites as the CES has provided throughout Australia and particularly throughout regional Australia to provide unemployed people with easy access to job vacancy opportunities. In Port Macquarie, for example, the one CES office will be replaced by five Job Network members; in Townsville, two CESs will be replaced by five Job Network members; and in Bendigo, one CES network will be replaced by six Job Network members. Indeed, the member for McEwen I know is particularly delighted that in her community Net Gain, a community non-profit organisation, has received the contract to help unemployed people in that community. All of these Job Network members will be competing with each other to provide unemployed people with the best possible chance to get a real job. How this contrasts with the complete lack of regard for unemployed people from the Labor Party. The member for Batman has conducted a disgraceful disinformation campaign right throughout the launch of this. He was warning for weeks beforehand that a duopoly of Employment National and Drake International was coming, and now we have 306 providers. Some duopoly! I think it is back to numeracy training for the member for Batman. But I think one of the most disgraceful things that the member for Batman has said was in a press release he issued when the Job Network was announced. He said that people will seek to get onto welfare even if they have to cheat to get there. That is a disgraceful statement about unemployed people in this
country. That shows what a low opinion the Labor Party has of unemployed people—that they will cheat in order to gain the benefits provided by the Job Network. You should resign for that. You have criticised the unemployed before. In this House you are just the voice for the unions. You do not care for unemployed people. You should take a leaf out of the book of your former colleague Graham Richardson, who, on 2GB last week said in relation to the Job Network, `I think we should all give it a chance.' Even your mate Richo sees the advantage of the Job Network. It is time for you to face up to the facts and realise that it is this government that is pursuing a strong justice agenda in this country to help the most disadvantaged people whom you abandoned. | Australia | 1,998 |
Did I surf the net and go to the MUA page? No, I didn't. I watched 60 Minutes last night as John Coombs invited Paul Lyneham onto his property and surveyed the chardonnay grapes—chardonnay Coombs. Did he then have a proposal to improve productivity on the waterfront? No, he didn't. In fact the last time I had a sit down conversation with Mr Coombs, I said to him, `John, what are we going to do to improve productivity on the Australian waterfront?' His answer was, `Don't be provocative.' I said to him, `John, what do we have to do to reduce the level of industrial disputes on the Australian waterfront?' He said, `Don't be provocative.'It would not be hard to make some significant improvements to productivity on the Australian waterfront. Members will, I hope, appreciate that in the last few weeks on a daily basis we have sent out a bulletin. In that bulletin on the right hand column, if you have missed it, I refer you to the heading which says, `Rort of the day'. This dispute could go on for six months and we would have a fresh one on a daily basis. But, in terms of fixing up the productivity on the Australian waterfront, you do not need a grand plan. What you need is a commitment for people just to do a decent day's work. Let me give you this example. At the start of this dispute at Webb dock the wharfies were worried about their public reputation. They decided that there were four containers that should be moved. They had kiwi fruit in them. They said to Patricks, `Don't worry; we'll remove those to get them out of the way of the dispute.' So they organised the removal of the four containers. How many people would it take the wharfies to move four containers? You would need one bloke to drive the forklift. I would have to say that in most businesses that would be plenty. But, of course, if you have one bloke driving a forklift, you have to have a foreman. There are four containers, so you need three advanced mathematicians who are all members
of the MUA to count them. They needed five people to move four containers. One of the classic stories of this dispute goes back to December. Overmanning is a constant problem. One of the classic stories of this dispute is the meeting between Chris Corrigan, who runs Patricks, and John Coombs before Christmas. Basically Chris Corrigan said to John Coombs and the MUA, `Quite frankly, John, we've spent a year trying to get an agreement out of you. That was 1996. In 1997 we spent a year trying to get you to do the very things that you had agreed to do. We find running this business basically impossible because we don't run it; you, the MUA, run it.' So he said to John Coombs, `I've got a solution for this. I will sell you the business for $1.' As he made that offer, Mr Corrigan passed over the dollar to John Coombs—`Here's the dollar you need to buy it.' Why wouldn't John Coombs accept that offer? Because he knows himself that even he could not run that business with the MUA to give it the productivity and the efficiency that we need. Mr Speaker, take this example. This is an example straight off the wage records of one of the major stevedores. This relates to a crane driver in the port of Melbourne. These are actual records. The crane driver is paid for an average 50.3 hours a week; that is his average working week. He spends 14 hours on relief time and other duties; 10½ hours holiday and sick leave; 8.5 hours on idle time or training; and 3.2 hours on meal breaks. This leaves only 14.1 hours, or 28 per cent of the paid hours, doing what he or she is supposed to be doing—driving the crane. They get paid $90,000 a year for 14 hours a week on a crane. And John Coombs is going to reveal his plan to improve productivity! My plan to improve productivity, just as a starter, is to deal with the rorts and the rip-offs on the Australian waterfront which are being protected by none other than the Labor Party. Why haven't we had a question from the Labor Party on the waterfront? They have been making the allegations about this particular dispute. Where are your questions? I will tell you why we have not heard much from them—not according to my point of
view, but according to the point of view of none other than he who knows them very well: Graham Richardson, Richo. This is what Richo said: The unions still own a majority of the stock in the ALP and the federal parliamentary Labor Party will be expected to stick with them. There are senior people in the party who know how risky this would be. They can see no way out of defending the wharfies to the bitter end. Perhaps this explains Kim Beazley's silence over the past week. This is the beginning of a major war on the waterfront, a war that could lead to a general strike, and we still don't know what the leader of the opposition thinks about it. This is one silence that isn't golden. The Richardson quote sums it up nicely. The fact of the matter is that we need significant reform on the waterfront. When Labor was in office, $420 million was spent trying to fix up the problem. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the member for his question. I know the concern that he has for our Defence Force personnel. In the debate earlier today many people stood and said how important the service was that our personnel were going to render. There was bipartisan support for those personnel. It is also important that we recognise that their families are part of that service and that they do need support while their family member is away on the deployment. Accordingly, one of the first things they need is information. So the Defence Force Support Unit has established a
hotline which will be the sole source of information for families of serving personnel. Secondly, the Defence Community Organisation, which is the organisation established to coordinate all support services for personnel, will have the special task of contacting families about their needs. The Special Air Services Regiment does have a vast internal network of unit welfare officers, liaison officers, a psychiatrist and a chaplain. They will be supported as well by the Defence Community Organisation. But, as with previous deployments, the Defence Force Support Unit will also provide services for the non-SASR personnel who are on deployment. All of those organisations will work jointly so that information is provided to families as they require it and support is given if there is need because their serving personnel family member is away. If there is ever the need for someone to be brought back for compassionate reasons those organisations will look at those concerns and deal with them as necessary. I stress that this government has a great commitment to the families of serving personnel. You have all expressed your support for the fine people who have gone on deployment and I suggest we extend that to their families as well. | Australia | 1,998 |
Let me make this point, and I have said this before: in relation to the external situation, if there is a downturn
amongst your trading partners you would expect over a period of time a downturn in relation to exports. That is an obvious point. I have also forecast in the mid-year review that that will have an effect on the current account deficit. I would not see anything to the contrary in today's figures; in fact, they would be quite consistent with what we have been saying. It is a long time since I have seen somebody from the opposition come into a parliament and try to set hares running as you just did by trying to broad brush what is obviously a very difficult financial position in Asia into Australia. What was the point you made? Was it that we have not done enough? Was that it? Where would we have been if we were $10 billion in deficit? Where would we have been if you had succeeded in your attempt to drive the economy into deficit? Where would we have been if debt was still where you left it? Where would we have been if we had maintained the kind of deceit that the Leader of the Opposition maintained by saying that the budget was in surplus when it was $10,000 million in the red? Where would we have been? Why is it that the Labor Party fought us on every single measure right throughout that period and now turns around and says, `Maybe you should have been doing more.' Where would we have been if we had not got inflation down to where it is now? Where would we have been if interest rates were not down at 6.5 per cent? Where would we have been if non-farm growth was not as strong as it is? As I indicated earlier, it is in a very strong position up to September 1997. | Australia | 1,998 |
You said it! You are condemned out of your own mouth! We all heard it. You stood at the dispatch box and said it a moment ago. Why don't you get up and make another point of order in relation to that? As I said earlier, we are one of the fastest growing nations—faster than any G7 nation: non-farm growth 4.6 per cent over the September quarter, and in a situation not where Asia is leading our growth but in a situation where Asia has gone into steep decline in the last year. You were right about one thing: never once in those 13 years did you have to bank on a declining growth rate in Asia—never once did you have to bank on a declining growth rate in Asia—and yet you still
managed negative growth back in the early nineties. Where would we have been under those policies if we had not dealt with the budget deficit that was left to us? What absolute gall to then stand up and say, after a record of failure, `We have an economic policy'—the first economic policy that they have announced in opposition after all of these years. Let us have a guess what it was: to produce surpluses over the next three years. I just want to add to one answer that I gave before. I may well have said that toothbrushes were subject to a 22 per cent sales tax. I now believe that toothbrushes may well be exempt. It is toothpaste that is subject to a 22 per cent sales tax. And, if you cannot find the logic in that, you had better ask the Labor Party because that is their system too. | Australia | 1,998 |
During question time my colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business drew attention to the anti-small business policies of the Labor Party in relation to our new fair deal package, which was announced last September. I think everybody would agree that that was an absolute watershed so far as small business reform was concerned. Outlined in that package, the government supported the extension of the banking industry ombudsman scheme to small business and the development of a banking industry small business charter. I am very, very pleased to announce to the House today that the Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman Board have today agreed and announced that both of these policy initiatives announced last September will be implemented. Firstly, the Australian banking industry ombudsman scheme will be extended to cover small business. Until now, only consumers and some unincorporated bodies have had
access to the scheme; incorporated small businesses have been denied access. I would think that all members on this side of the House, who work very hard for small businesses in their electorates, would be aware of a constant complaint of small business—that is, they do not have access to the Banking Industry Ombudsman. If an individual consumer has a complaint with small business they can go to the ombudsman, but, in relation to the small business, if they have a complaint, an iron door has come across and someone has said, `No, you cannot have access to the small business ombudsman.'This is yet another trailblazing initiative of our government to do something practical in order to assist the small businesses of Australia. Let's face it: this would not have happened if it had not been for the agitation of this government. It was something that has been strenuously resisted over a period of time. In addition, the Australian Bankers Association and its members will develop and adopt a small business charter. Until now, this has only been a consumer guide. I have to say again that the Labor Party had 13 years to do these things but, of course, they were going to do it in the 14th year. Like they were going to do something else in the 14th year. | Australia | 1,998 |
by leave— I am pleased to be able to report to members briefly on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, which was held in Old Parliament House from 2 to 13 February 1998. As members will be aware, the convention was held to consider three questions: whether or not Australia should become a republic; which republic model should be put to the voters to consider against the current system of government; and in what time frame and under what circumstances any change might be considered. The Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair MP and the Hon. Barry Jones AO, MP presided as Chairman
and Deputy Chairman respectively. They performed these roles with flair, distinction, good humour and great style, and I congratulate both of them. I thank them on behalf of all the people who took part in the convention and on behalf of the many hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of Australians who observed the proceedings. The holding of the convention fulfilled an election commitment that I gave to the Australian people prior to the last election. Before that election it was clear that, just as many in the community felt that our present system works well, there was widespread support for the idea of Australia becoming a republic. That is why I made the promise that I did to the Australian voters that a convention would be held in our first term of government. I am proud to say that the convention was conducted in a very constructive fashion, and I feel privileged to have been the Prime Minister responsible for the establishment of the convention. May I take this opportunity of recording my appreciation to my predecessor as leader of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party, the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, for his initial proposal that, if the coalition were elected to government, a constitutional convention should be held. I think it ought to be a matter of record in this speech that I make to this parliament on the Constitutional Convention that the original impetus for the holding of the Convention was the proposal of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate him for the germ of an extremely good idea which has come to very constructive fruition. My government has enormous confidence in the capacity of Australians to debate this issue with vigour and civility. The convention comprised of a diverse group of Australians. Half of the Convention's 152 delegates were appointed by the government. The appointments represented a broad cross-section of Australian society and a wide diversity of skills and experience. They also reflected the government's commitment to ensure that women, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people, young Australians and local government were represented. It has been said before, but it bears repetition, that one of the outstanding characteristics of the convention was the eloquent, compelling and, on occasions, quite uplifting contributions of the young Australian delegates who took part in the convention. The other 76 delegates were elected by the Australian people. These delegates were chosen from the 609 candidates who stood for election last year. I am sure members will agree that the elected delegates also carried themselves in a manner that did the Australian public which elected them extremely proud. That such a diverse group of people could work together constructively to bring us to a useful outcome speaks volumes for the strength of Australia's democracy. The convention engaged the public as well as the delegates. Some 6.75 million copies of the public information materials prepared by the government to increase the community's understanding of the issues were published in 68 metropolitan and regional newspapers. Over 1,000 submissions from members of the public to delegates have been received, and there were around 125,000 hits recorded on the Internet home page. During the convention, something like 17,500 visitors moved through the public galleries to see this historic event. I know that much of the rest of the Australian public, as well as many interested overseas observers, were watching and listening to the extensive television and radio coverage of the convention proceedings. In my opening address to the convention I said: Whatever may be our views on the threshold issue of whether or not Australia should become a republic and whatever form we might believe any such republic should take, we owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the Australian people to conduct this Convention in an open, positive and constructive fashion. I am very pleased to report that the convention achieved that objective. The majority of the convention supported in principle Australia becoming a republic. Of the republican models, the `bipartisan appointment of the president' model, as it became known, clearly had the greatest support. The convention voted overwhelmingly in favour
of a resolution that a referendum be held to test that model against the existing system. The convention also recommended that, if the referendum to be held in 1999 results in support for a republic, the new republic should come into effect by 1 January 2001. As I indicated in my opening address to the convention, that is very much the government's view—that if we are to become a republic then the relevant commencement date should be 1 January 2001 and, equally, if we are not, then that particular event will be celebrated without the debate raging at that particular time. I believe that the convention has spoken very clearly. It is the intention of my government if it is returned at the next election to hold the referendum before the end of 1999. I have asked the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) to bring forward a proposal for consideration by the government on the necessary processes leading to the referendum. The final decision about whether Australia becomes a republic will be put firmly in the hands of the Australian people, as it should be, and in the hands of no-one else. I table the communique of the Constitutional Convention and inform members that a full report on the proceedings of the convention will be published very soon. | Australia | 1,998 |
I hope this means that we will not be coming back for debate on a subsequent occasion, because it is pretty darned unfair—everyone else gets 15 minutes and the Leader of the Opposition gets seven. I know the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) just got seven, but every other person in this place would get 15. I will leave that to one side. I also join the Prime Minister in the thanks that he gave to the presiding officers of the Constitutional Convention. Before the history
of this recedes into the deep, dark mists of time, let me also place on record that the overjoyed response that the Prime Minister had to the convention and to the processes that established the convention were not there in his heart for the bulk of the last 12 to 18 months. We are as thoroughly aware as he—because sometimes from time to time we were involved in conversations on the matter with his staff and with the relevant ministers—that this was not an agenda that the Prime Minister wanted to see advanced; nor was it a convention that he wished to see take place, at least not with elected members. Nevertheless, we arrived at the conclusion and the convention was held. I must say I think the convention did those who participated in it proud in the way in which they conducted the deliberations for the people who were represented there. It is without question the best representation of indigenous Australians that we have seen and without question the best representation of young people, many of whom got themselves there by that elective process and made a really major contribution to the deliberations. They exhibited a level of sophisticated thinking and patriotism—sophisticated thinking about the politics of this nation and patriotism which gave you a sense that the country will be in good hands, indeed maybe even better hands, when we move on from this place. The convention, however, is simply a process to an end. The end is the completion of bringing home the Australian constitution. I do not think it is sufficient for the government simply to have a view that they will find themselves in a situation of being some sort of midwife for the proposal, that they will assist at the birth—or not, as the case may be—and essentially be a neutral party to the process by which the constitution is changed. That is not good enough for anyone who knows anything about Australian politics. Anyone who knows anything about Australian politics knows that neutrality on the part of government in constitutional change is negativity. There is no evading that. Neutrality is negativity. There is absolutely no evading that point. If this proposition is to have any sort of chance at all—at least on one time of asking, and particularly given that what is emerging is a non-elected presidency—then it will require the active support of the political leadership of the nation. If the Prime Minister wants to get credit for this exercise, then the Prime Minister must join us on the hustings—we hope, of course, as Leader of the Opposition—when this matter is finally placed before the Australian people. We on this side of the House are very well aware that we have to take a risk with the processes we have put forward which we think are essential—and I believe the Liberal Party agrees—for the good governance of the nation. We have to, in a sense, swim against the tide—the tide which is overwhelmingly in favour of an elected president. It is the misfortune of those who advocate change in the Australian constitution in favour of the majority position established at the Constitutional Convention that we look a bit out of sorts with the elective character of the Australian nation. If we had been deciding at the time that these matters were first considered by the Australian people back in the 1890s as to what sort of process should see the appointment of a head of state, then those who advocated a parliamentary Westminster system versus an American or even Irish or French constitutional model in terms of a directly elected president would not have had the disadvantage of appearing to be arguing some form of elitist proposal. Both would have been seen as equally viable within the context of an Australian democratic process then being put in place. So we take a risk, and the risk we take is because we think this is the best mechanism for avoiding a change to a Westminster system that we love. But, if we are not joined in the trenches by the leadership of the Liberal Party, and probably also by the leadership of the National Party, that will not be the form that the Australian constitutional change takes. Let us be clear about this: even if it is lost next time around, it will not leave the Australian agenda. You could not see those young people at that conference and assume that it
would leave the Australian agenda merely for the loss the first time around. What a loss the first time around means is that, in all likelihood, the next time of asking would see serious consideration being given to an elected president, which would change fundamentally the nature of the Australian constitution. That would be unavoidable. If the Prime Minister of this country is to show leadership on this issue and not just skirt around the edges—and isolated he was by his supporters, I might say, at that Constitutional Convention—he must decide, given that this is now going to the Australian people, that he must enter the lists in favour of the changes that the convention he established recommended. Many of his colleagues will, though many were disappointed that the monarchists did not produce a situation there where they had produced what was the so-called McGarvie model or ultra minimalist model at the time—and back scenery work was done quite intensively by government members at the time to try to produce that. But, despite that fact, there is an obligation, I think, on those who want to midwife this process or put the proposition forward if they happen to be in government to actually be supportive of it. We, of course, hope and believe that it will be us who put that referendum forward. But if that is not to be the case, if that referendum is to have any chance of passage at all, the Prime Minister will need a leap of leadership that we have not so far seen from him. But I join him, nevertheless, in congratulating the delegates for a great performance on their part, again congratulating two very good presiding officers for the role that they played and congratulating my deputy on the resolutions committee and those who worked with him, like the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), who produced an orderly conference and did very well indeed with it. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 12