1999-09-213914REPS1002501999-09-21Mr SPEAKER(Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous1002514:00:0010025Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That this House:(1) notes the overwhelming choice for independence exercised by the East Timorese people on 30 August;(2) welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 1264 authorising a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, protect the United Nations' mission in East Timor and facilitate humanitarian assistance;(3) endorses Australia's agreement to the United Nations Secretary General's request that Australia contribute to and lead the multinational force;(4) expresses its full support for the Australians serving with the multinational force and its full confidence in them; and(5) looks forward to their safe return home.Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that the parliament at the first opportunity have the chance to debate this motion, because there is no more serious decision that any government takes than to commit Australian military forces abroad. It is therefore essential that the reasons for that decision be made plain to the parliament of Australia and that the representatives of the Australian public have a full opportunity to debate those reasons.Yesterday the first contingent of Australian forces was deployed in East Timor. We are deploying those forces as part of a multinational force which Australia is leading and that has been sponsored by a United Nations resolution. As of this morning, there were about 1,500 troops from Australia and other countries on East Timor. By tomorrow morning there will be about 2,500.On Sunday and Monday, accompanied by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, I had the opportunity of meeting and farewelling many of the men and women who are now in, or about to be deployed in, East Timor. It is fair to say that we were all tremendously impressed by their state of readiness, their eagerness, their understanding of the importance of the mission and their commitment to the goals and values of the Australian community which underpin the decision taken by the government to commit Australian forces. It was appropriate that they be seen and farewelled not only by the Prime Minister but also by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, because we should remember that when Australians go abroad as an armed force, they do not go in the name of the government of the day, they go in the name of Australia. It is therefore important that all of them understand that.Sharing dinner with many of them in Townsville on Sunday evening, my wife and I were struck by their cheerfulness, their professionalism and their commitment to their task. I was also very deeply warmed by the characteristic Australian responses. One of them looked at me as we ate and said, `Well, John, now I've got you, let me tell you what's wrong with the Army.' It was so Australian; it was so reassuring; and it was a reminder of the sorts of values that are important to the Australian community.I now report to the parliament therefore on the reasons for their deployment, what their task is and what the decision means for Australian defence and foreign policy. In the course of doing that, may I record my deep appreciation to my two colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence, both of whom throughout this entire episode have behaved with impeccable professionalism. They have played a major role in bringing about a state of affairs where I believe the overwhelming majority of the Australian community is immensely proud of the role that Australia has played on this issue.It is important as we analyse this commitment to understand that Australia carries on this occasion the special burden of leadership of this group. We have participated in the past in peacekeeping, peace enforcement and other operations, but on this occasion we carry the special responsibility and the special burden of leadership. As the House will know, on 15 September the United Nations Security Council unanimously authorised the establishment of a multinational force in Timor. The resolution gives the force three tasks for its mandate: first, to restore peace and security to East Timor; second, to protect and support the United Nations Mission in East Timor and; third, to facilitate within force capabilities humanitarian assistance operations in East Timor. The multinational force has been authorised by the United Nations Security Council, under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to use all necessary measures to achieve its mandate. The multinational force will prepare the ground for the United Nations to complete its task of managing East Timor's transition to independence. This will involve the arrival as soon as possible of a fully-fledged blue helmet UN peacekeeping operation and the establishment of a UN transitional administration.The Australian government will be doing everything it can to ensure that the UN transitional administration is ready to take over when the Indonesian parliament ratifies East Timor's independence. The government's expectation is that the multinational force will be about 7,500 strong. Australia is initially deploying 2,000 troops, increasing up to 4,500 if necessary. Australia will provide the force commander, Major General Cosgrove, and Thailand will provide the deputy force commander, Major General Songkitti.We estimate that the cost of Australia's contribution will be in the order of $500 million in the financial year 1999-2000. Under the terms of the Security Council resolution, costs will be borne by participating states or met from voluntary contributions to a special trust fund that has been established by the United Nations.We have firm commitments to participate from more than 12 countries. These include Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, from within ASEAN, and New Zealand, Britain and Canada are making valuable contributions. The United States will provide significant support, including airlift capability, communications, intelligence, engineering support and helicopters. There are many other contributions, including from Korea and China. The defence minister will provide details separately. Some countries that are not contributing troops will contribute financially to the UN trust fund, and I welcome Japan's offer of a substantial contribution.I want to take the opportunity to express my deep appreciation to the leaders of all of the nations that are contributing troops or financial assistance. I would like in particular to thank my regional colleague the Prime Minister of Thailand, Mr Chuan, who so promptly responded to my request for assistance in providing a substantial military contingent as well as the Deputy Force Commander. I also draw the attention of the House to the very strong support offered by President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea during his recent visit and, likewise, President Estrada of the Philippines and other regional leaders have given strong support to the UN multinational force.Australia is not alone in this venture. The region has responded readily and promptly in creating this force with us under the umbrella of the United Nations. The government has every confidence in the professionalism of the Australian Defence Force and its preparedness for this operation. The units have inspired confidence by the speed with which they have got themselves ready and the proficiency with which they are being deployed. I congratulate the Defence Force and their commanding officers on this excellent response.The tasks that our men and women face will not be easy. We hope it will be accomplished soon, but we have to be prepared for the possibility that it will be long and protracted. The risk of casualties is a serious one; this is a dangerous operation. The rules of engagement for Australia's forces will allow them to use lethal force to achieve their mandate to restore peace and security. Our troops will not be sent into danger with one hand tied behind their back.It is important to insert here the recognition that the rules of engagement are broader, fuller and more robust than was the case in rules of engagement in other peacekeeping operations that produced the agonisingly frustrating situation of heavily armed peacekeepers literally having to stand by and see atrocities committed before their very eyes. I think all of us in Townsville and Darwin were encouraged by the detailed knowledge of the rules of engagement of all of the serving personnel and their satisfaction that the rules of engagement were adequate and appropriate to all of the possibilities and all of the tasks that might lie ahead.Indonesia has undertaken to cooperate with the multinational force. I welcome the fact that the force commander has been able to report that he has enjoyed good cooperation on the ground from the Indonesian commander in East Timor. However, the multinational force could be a target of attack from the pro-integration militias. It would be foolhardy of us to plan on any other basis. In the past the militias have been supported by elements in the Indonesian armed forces. We hope that all parts of the Indonesian armed forces understand that it would not be in the interests of their country to continue that support.The formation of the multinational force is a result of strenuous efforts on the part of many, including the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, for whom I would like to express my highest regard. Throughout the recent negotiations to establish the peacekeeping force he has displayed great diplomatic skill, patience, determination and a clear understanding of the issues at stake. The speed of the international community's response is due in no small measure to his commitment and skill.Australia's leadership of the multinational force is the most recent step in a sustained effort by the government to help resolve the East Timor issue. Apart from the human toll from the conflict in East Timor during nearly 25 years, the issue has held Indonesia back internationally and has been a cause of tension in Australia's relationship with Indonesia.The resignation of President Suharto and the moves towards democracy last year in Indonesia opened the door to a possible resolution in East Timor. Moreover, as members will know, the conflict in East Timor was worsening. I therefore wrote to President Habibie in December last year, encouraging him to take a different approach to East Timor. I suggested to him that he negotiate directly with the East Timorese and consider the option of autonomy for East Timor with an act of self-determination after a substantial period of autonomy.It has to be recognised frankly that, for a quarter of a century, governments of both political persuasions in Australia had reluctantly acquiesced in Indonesia's policy towards East Timor. Although the issue was raised from time to time, Australian governments were not prepared to see the relationship with Indonesia put under strain for the sake of making progress with East Timor. My letter and the policy changes embodied in it therefore represented a significant change, after a quarter of a century, in the policy approach of this government towards Indonesia in relation to East Timor.Subsequently, in January of this year, President Habibie took the bold and principled step of agreeing to a UN-supervised ballot on independence for East Timor. I indicated at the time that Australia would have preferred a longer period of substantial autonomy for East Timor before a ballot was held. We recognised, however, that once the decision had been taken to hold a ballot, the dynamics in East Timor and internationally had changed forever. The best and only realistic course of action was to help the United Nations ensure as safe a ballot as was possible. If we had argued for a delay, the opportunity could well have been lost entirely. Australia was not a party to the agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the United Nations on the holding of the ballot and subsequent transition arrangements. This agreement was based on a promise by the Indonesian government that it would secure conditions in East Timor throughout the process.The Australian government, well aware of the links between the Indonesian armed forces and the East Timorese militias, mounted a sustained international campaign to press Indonesia to adhere to the commitment to provide security which it had made to the United Nations. In order to secure an environment as free as possible of violence and intimidation, the Australian government argued for and insisted upon an increase in civilian police advisers, to some 300, before the ballot. We insisted that these numbers be again increased for the period immediately after the ballot, which we were aware was potentially dangerous.Australians can be immensely proud of the performance of our Federal Police, ably led by the United Nations civilian police commander, Alan Mills. Australian military liaison officers, the staff of the Australian Consulate, and many Australians, including from the Australian Electoral Commission, helped ensure a fair ballot. On behalf of the government, I want to acknowledge their dedication and their bravery in such difficult conditions.In the end, on a day that passed without major disruption, the outcome was decisive. The East Timorese voted by a margin of four to one for independence. The turnout—with 98.6 per cent of those registered casting a vote—and the integrity of the process vindicated the United Nations' judgment to proceed with the ballot despite threats from the pro-integration militias. The conduct of the ballot was a tribute to the work of UNAMET and the leadership of its head, Ian Martin.After the ballot, however, Indonesia's armed forces proved unwilling or unable to maintain security in East Timor. We have all been horrified by the violence against the people of East Timor, the mass flight of people within the territory and from it, and by the scale of the destruction of property and infrastructure. This was the background to Australia's efforts to establish a multinational peacekeeping force under the United Nations and to convince Indonesia to invite one in.In numerous telephone conversations with the UN Secretary-General, President Clinton, President Habibie and other leaders before, during and after the APEC meeting in Auckland, I emphasised the need for decisive international action to restore peace to East Timor, to deal with the looming humanitarian disaster, and to create the conditions for the transition to independence for East Timor. It is to the great credit of President Habibie that he agreed to invite in international peace keepers. It would not have been an easy domestic political decision for him, either personally or otherwise. Ours has been the correct and only responsible course of action. Some have argued that Australia should have insisted—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I will say that again. Some have argued that Australia should have insisted on a United Nations peacekeeping force before the ballot or should have argued for a delay in the ballot. Let me emphasise that there was never any prospect that Indonesia would have accepted a peacekeeping force before the ballot. I raised it directly with President Habibie in Bali when I met him earlier this year. He made it clear in the discussions we had that any such proposal was totally and completely unacceptable to him and to the Indonesian government.I think it is also worth while my informing the House that, on three other occasions, I raised with the President of Indonesia the question of the intervention of international peacekeepers. On 29 August, which was the day before the ballot result was announced, I rang President Habibie to discuss what might happen when the announcement of the ballot was made. I sought assurances from him as to the safety of Australian personnel in East Timor and generally of the security situation. We discussed the possibility of peacekeepers. He made it clear that he would only be prepared to contemplate peacekeepers going in after the transition to independence had taken place—in other words, after the Indonesian National Assembly had voted in favour of the separation of East Timor from the rest of Indonesia. I rang him again over the weekend after the ballot result had been announced, and he again made it clear that peacekeepers were simply not possible until after the National Assembly vote and the UN transitional administration was in place.On 6 September I rang him again to discuss the deteriorating situation in East Timor. He indicated then—and this was after contact had been made by the Secretary-General with me and also between the Secretary-General and Dr Habibie—that he would declare martial law in East Timor and if that did not work he would consider inviting in a peacekeeping force. And it so transpires that that is precisely the course of events that were subsequently followed. It is therefore clear that any suggestion that peacekeepers could have been inserted before the ballot was held had no contact at all with the reality of the situation.Insisting on a peacekeeping force would have meant no ballot. Insisting on a delay in the ballot could well have meant no ballot. Many in President Habibie's government and much of the Indonesian leadership opposed the ballot. Indonesia had resisted any change in East Timor for nearly 25 years. Nor would the international community have been ready to form a peacekeeping force. An international peacekeeping force has only now become possible because the world has seen 78.5 per cent of East Timorese vote for independence and is not prepared to see them denied the independence they so clearly voted for. The United Nations made the decision that the ballot should go ahead on schedule. As the United Nations Secretary-General has said, if the UN had not accepted a ballot in the circumstances available the ballot probably would never have happened. We did not have the right to take that away from the people of East Timor.In the face of the violence after the ballot a few people in this country called for Australia to send in troops to East Timor without the consent of Indonesia. That would have been tantamount to declaring war. It was an option no responsible government could have contemplated, despite the distress that we, along with all Australians, felt about the terrible events in East Timor. I think that this has been recognised by the Australian people. Nevertheless, the international community has moved faster than in any other case I am aware of to form a peacekeeping force. This has happened because of the leadership that Australia has shown in forming a coalition of countries under the United Nations umbrella. It has also happened only because the government, aware of the potential risks, took the precaution early this year of bringing an extra brigade of the Australian Army to a higher level of readiness in order to respond to any peacekeeping needs. If we had not done so, Australia would not have been able to respond immediately to the request of the United Nations not only to participate in the peacekeeping force but also to lead that force.Developments in East Timor reaffirm some of the home truths about Australia's place in the region to which we pointed when we came into office in 1996. The first truth is that foreign policy needs to be based on a clear sense of the national interest and on our values. As Palmerston famously observed, `Nations do not have permanent friends but only permanent interests.' This government has from the beginning put a clear sense of the national interest at the core of the government's approach to foreign and trade policy. We should not delude ourselves that relations between countries turn on the personnel rapport of leaders, the sentiments of governments or so-called special relationships. Our relationships are most productive when they are realistic, concentrating on mutual interests, building on those areas where cooperation is possible and openly recognising, where they exist, differences in values and political systems.The second truth is that in occupying what I have called a unique intersection—a Western nation next to Asia with strong links to the United States and Europe—Australia deploys unique assets in our relationship with the Asian region. These links in our history are not an embarrassment to be lived down—quite the contrary. We have stopped worrying about whether we are Asian, in Asia, enmeshed in Asia or part of the a mythical East-Asian hemisphere. We have got on with the job of being ourselves in the region. In turn, the region has recognised that we are an asset and have a constructive role to play in it. Australia's global links have enabled us to work with the United Nations, the United States and others to persuade Indonesia that its best interests would be met by inviting in a multinational force. Moreover, our defence links with all these countries through ANZUS, the five power defence arrangements and our bilateral defence cooperation programs provide us with the capacity to cooperate effectively with them and lead a multinational force. The third truth is that Australia's alliance with the United States clearly works very effectively. The results reflect the effort the government has put into strengthening the alliance since we came into office. Neither Australia nor the region looks to the United States to solve the East Timor problem for us, but the alliance relationship has underpinned a visible and operationally significant US contribution to the peacekeeping force. We are completely satisfied with the scale of the US contribution.Fourthly, the government has been right to exempt defence spending from the necessary budget cuts of our first term. The defence reforms we have pursued have put more resources into the combat capability of the Australian Defence Force. I have already foreshadowed the need to examine an increase in defence spending. Australia faces an uncertain regional security situation; the resource and force structure implications of this will be significant. The government's next white paper on defence will examine the likely demands on the ADF for regional peacekeeping, the evacuation of Australian nationals under difficult conditions and the capacity to participate in coalition operations. While the Defence Force must be equipped to defend Australia from direct attack, it must also be able to respond to other more likely contingencies. In other words, the Australian community must face the need for a significant increase in defence commitment in the years ahead.Finally, national interest cannot be pursued without regard to the values of the Australian community. Australia has no quarrel with the Indonesian nation. Both countries have an interest in getting on with the other. We share important common interests; we are neighbours. Indonesia is the largest country in South-East Asia. How it develops and behaves will influence the strategic balance in our region. It is a significant economic partner for Australia.Australian policy approaches need to take account of the changes that are taking place in Indonesia. We welcome the transition towards democracy that is occurring in that country. In time this will strengthen Indonesia and our capacity to work with it. We recognise the enormous difficulties that Indonesia faces as it responds to the most serious economic crisis in decades and traverses this political transition. Indeed, my government has been in the forefront in helping Indonesia manage those difficulties and in garnering greater international support and understanding for Indonesia's problems. We also recognise the complexities of governing a nation of over 200 million people spread over thousands of islands. Successful economic and political management by Indonesia of a united but diverse nation is important for Indonesia's own future stability and prosperity. It is also in the interests of Australia and the region.But none of this means that Australia's objective can be to maintain a good relationship with Indonesia at all costs or at the expense of doing the right thing according to our own values. We seek a relationship of mutual respect and mutual benefit with Indonesia. On that basis, we look forward to working closely with the new, democratically elected government of that country to be formed in the near future.Events in East Timor have put our relationship with Indonesia under great strain. It would be foolish to imagine that things could have been otherwise, given the stance of Australian foreign policy on East Timor over the last 25 years. Some resent Australia's efforts to help in East Timor or seek to use us as a scapegoat. But we should keep this in perspective. The criticisms of Australian foreign policy that we have seen and heard in Indonesia are not the only Indonesian voices. There are many people in Indonesia who identify with democracy and support the steps that Indonesia is taking in this direction. They are also appalled at the total breakdown of security in East Timor. They will understand and sympathise with the response from Australia and the rest of the international community.In this context, I ask those in Australia who exercise their legitimate right of protest to refrain from violence against people and property and not to impede people going about their normal business. Such behaviour is unlawful and will be treated as such. It damages the interests of our citizens and has a counterproductive effect on Indonesian attitudes.The government is encouraged by the commitment of so many of Indonesia's political leaders to respect the vote cast by East Timorese. We look forward to the new Indonesian parliament formally deciding to allow East Timor to separate from Indonesia. I was greatly encouraged by the remarks made by President Habibie in his address to the Indonesian parliament only a few hours ago when he recommitted the government of his country to accept the outcome of the ballot that was conducted in East Timor.When this government came into office, some commentators said that Asia would not accept us. The comment was revealing in its assumption that Australia had to be invited into a regional framework. It was a view of Australia that underestimated the strengths of Australia's institutions, our economy, our capacity and our will to achieve national goals. Our safe passage through the Asian economic storm makes that view even more dated, irrelevant and erroneous. The truth is that our economic, military and other credentials are respected and give us a capacity to help and constructively participate in the region. Just as we were in a position to assist our neighbours during the Asian economic crisis, so also on East Timor we have shown that we have the capacity under the United Nations to work with our regional partners in putting together a multinational peacekeeping force. It is an example of both our commitment to the region and our capacity to make a constructive and practical contribution to its affairs.The deployment of Australian troops to East Timor meets the test of national interest in two respects. First, in the spirit of Australia's military tradition, our troops are going to defend what this society believes to be right. They are not going to occupy territory, to impose the will of Australia on others or to act against the legitimate interests of another country. They are going at the request of the United Nations and with the agreement of the Indonesian government. They are going to defend the choice of East Timorese who have exercised that choice in favour of independence in a free vote granted to them by their government with the blessing of the whole international community. They are going to facilitate the humanitarian relief that is so desperately needed for the hundreds of thousands of displaced people in East Timor. No-one who has met the East Timorese evacuees in Darwin, as I did at a moving occasion in Darwin yesterday, could help but be deeply touched by their plight.Second, our troops are going to East Timor to put an end to the sort of violence that we have seen in recent days. Apart from the human cost, this scale of violence undermines Australia's own interest in a stable region. Our troops will prepare the way for the United Nations to undertake the vital task of developing a transitional political and administrative framework for East Timor. For East Timorese, this offers the hope of reconciliation among groups that have fought each other for decades and the opportunity to create their own future. They have a responsibility to come to grips with these issues. For Indonesia, it will more readily be able to concentrate on its nation building task, with the full support of the international community.Australia's contribution to the peacekeeping force in East Timor is the biggest commitment of Australian military forces in over 30 years. Our men and women go well-trained, well-led, and in a just cause. At this time our thoughts and prayers are with those in the field, as they go to help restore peace and security to a people who themselves once helped Australian soldiers at a time of need and who have suffered so much in recent times. At home we undertake to give them our support and to watch over their families while they are away. We wish them safety and a safe and early return home. I commend the motion to the House.14:40:0010031Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I support the motion and so does my party. We hope that at some point it will be passed unanimously by this chamber and the other place. Yesterday and today Australian forces landed in East Timor, taking part in the largest and most dangerous military operation Australia has undertaken since the Vietnam War. The brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force now step into harm's way, bringing all their years of dedication and training and all their reserves of skill and courage to the protection of innocent people. As we speak here today, they and their colleagues from the other nations are making their contribution to the creation of an independent state of East Timor. Our Australian forces march at the head of a long column which stretches back through time to the young men of a young nation who landed on the beaches of Gallipoli. We honour them all. All of them are there in spirit as their descendants land on foreign soil.I of all people know the importance to these soldiers of feeling that the nation is behind them. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Australian Democrats and I moved among those being deployed, from time to time the remark was made to us, `Are you really behind us? Are the people of Australia really behind us? Is this only a temporary situation? What is the real view?' I can say to them with absolute clarity that their country is behind them. The political process is behind them. All parts of the political system, all parties, are behind them—behind them in every aspect of their needs and behind them in the role that they are now assuming. We wish them well. We are proud of them. We want to see them home soon and we want to see them home safe, but we understand they have a job to do which may take some considerable time.Our thoughts, above all, are with their families and the young ones, because those are the people who will carry in their hearts the burden of this commitment. The soldiers know from day to day what they are doing in the field. Their families cannot know. Their families could not know even the exact point of their departure, and that is appropriate. But the soldiers do need to know that we are with their families and their loved ones at this time. We have to give them all the backing they deserve. This is a peace enforcement mission. It will need substantial supplies of conflict stocks. We need to make sure that the soldiers have first-rate medical facilities and are properly resourced, down to the ground, with boots, packs, water supplies, ammunition—with every aspect of their requirements.The Prime Minister was surprised—I was not—that when he got to talking to the troops he was immediately confronted by the fact that they had complaints about this or that aspect of equipment. It is a long tradition in the Australian Army that, when the senior officer is present, when the person with a degree of authority is there, every single rank among our soldiers knows that they can raise a complaint. That is a good part of the democratic tradition of the Australian armed forces. This is something that the government is going to have to think through. It is going to have to bear in mind that one thing that this operation will show is where there are substantial problems in such a deployment in terms of equipment. It must be able to respond immediately and it must be able to respond through the minister's office, and the minister has to be thoroughly and completely on top of all of this.It is right that the Australian people should feel some relief that peacekeepers are now on the ground in East Timor. It is right that we feel some relief—some licence to hope that the killing, the destruction, the starvation and the deportation will soon cease. We welcome, too, those nations that have been prepared to join with us. The 12 nations that make up this peacekeeping force are enough to stand shoulder to shoulder with us and they come from the right sources, sharing our convictions and the convictions of the United Nations. I want to express particular appreciation to the Thai government for their willingness to stand with us, to provide the deputy commander and to provide substantial resources as we deal with these problems.We hope that this force will put a stop to the terrible violence and destruction that we have witnessed in the last few weeks—indeed, for most of this year. We welcome the fact that the landing appears to have gone without incident. We hope that it will pave the way for an independent and secure East Timorese state. At this point, we register some concern at aspects of INTERFET's mandate, in particular the omission of a requirement for the militia, who caused this violence, to disarm and a requirement for the withdrawal of the Indonesian army—the TNI—from the territory, and the unresolved danger of partition of East Timor. All these are matters which will have to be thought through and which we should seek resolution of as quickly as possible. There are concerns for the safety of the peacekeepers and also for the East Timorese and the future of their independent homeland.I wish I could say that I could leave it there. I wish we were able to welcome the arrival of peacekeepers for the positive development that it is and go no further into this terrible chain of events; but we must go further. Indeed, the nature of the comments made by the Prime Minister invites us to go further as he sought a detailed justification for government policy in arriving at the point at which we now find ourselves. It is important that we now look at the point at which we find ourselves before we go into the historical record, or the substantial rewrite of it that we have just heard.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Three weeks ago, there was an infrastructure in East Timor and a population of some 750,000. There was leadership—a religious leadership, a village leadership. There was a coherent polity in East Timor. Yesterday, as our Australian forces landed, there was a small group of people to greet them—people who are shattered, enormously psychologically damaged, uncertain where their families are and uncertain of the promise our peacekeepers held out. After all, what was their experience of the international community to that point? A guarantee of security from the United Nations and all those who had supported their position, and death and destruction immediately after the ballot took place—that has been their experience to this point.Our soldiers confront a dispersed population about whom we must have continuing substantial concerns. Tens of thousands of East Timorese have now moved involuntarily to West Timor. Tens of thousands are elsewhere, out of the ambit of the operations of the peacekeeping force. And the reports that we received in the last six months about the execution of pro-independence people at the hand of the militias are still flowing through in relation to those who now are located outside East Timor. Our view is—and it is not simply ours—that a large measure of this destruction could well have been avoided. This destruction is a product of policy failure.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I would think it extraordinary if the chair had to intervene in a debate such as this, but I will.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Mr Speaker, we listened in silence to their exculpation. We understand completely why they would want to heckle. We start first and foremost with where responsibility lies for this set of circumstances. It lies in the inaction of the Indonesian government—inaction at best, and at worst the deliberate action of some elements, sometimes described by some as rogue elements, with others perceiving more direct, sinister, official intent.The simple fact is that a great opportunity for the Indonesian people and government has been missed. Think of the international regard that would now extend to Indonesia—it is possible to resurrect some of this—if the Indonesian government had delivered a safe ballot followed by a smooth transition and, on their way out, a gesture of generosity on behalf of the Indonesian people to the East Timorese. There is not a nation on earth that would not honour the Indonesian people and the Indonesian government were that to have occurred. They would stand in serried ranks in the United Nations and elsewhere, wanting to render to the Indonesian people every form of assistance that they could possibly need and every form of support and goodwill for their own extraordinarily difficult democratisation process.Let us not kid ourselves about this. There is only one reason why the issue of East Timor is on the agenda in this way. It is that it is a direct outcome of changes which have taken place in Indonesia itself with the overthrow of President Suharto's government, the bringing into place of a proposal for the democratisation of Indonesia, an election associated with that and then, above all in these circumstances, President Habibie's statement that the process would proceed peacefully and quickly to a ballot. There was plenty of advice not to do that.The Prime Minister has revealed his advice in that regard. Indeed, the position of the Australian government at that point of time was not all that different from Bishop Belo's position or the position of those associated with Falintil. They all thought that a lengthy period of transition—permitting reconciliation, followed by a ballot on independence—was desirable.President Habibie I believe was under pressure from the point of view expressed within his polity that if East Timor was to go then not much more money ought to be spent in that area. President Habibie accelerated the process, but in accelerating the process he cut loose a set of forces which he had not calculated fully the capacity to control.That is where we come in. That is where the Australian policy failure comes in. Let me go through it, since the Prime Minister made such a lengthy effort on his part to deal with his defence of what he anticipated an attack might be. Let me go through the commentaries of certain people in the Australian media—not the Australian Labor Party.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Let me go through the commentaries of people in the Australian media who have been very fast to defend this government on occasions when they felt themselves to be in agreement with it. Let me go through it because these were judgments made in the immediate aftermath of the decision to deploy, finally, peacekeeping forces. Firstly, Greg Sheridan, under a headline `A holocaust of Canberra's making', says:This has been a bloody and appalling failure of Australian strategy and policy.Laurie Oakes says:What has happened since the ballot, in the government's view, is the massacre we had to have. On Downer's web page is a speech headed Australia and East Timor—A Cause for Pride . But I don't feel proud. I doubt many Australians do. Tony Wright says:A triumph? It is better summed up in the words of a US Vietnam War colonel: "We had to burn down the village in order to save it." The words were mad and bad then, and they still are.And we heard those words here again: the utter devastation of Timor has to be tolerated because we could do no other, because there is nothing more that we could do. This is Paul Kelly:As the magnitude of the Howard Government's foreign policy failure deepens daily, the new political threat centres on the fate of the Australian forces in East Timor. This is the most dangerous period of John Howard's prime ministership. It represents a completely new dimension. The entire cause of this troop engagement stems from the Howard Government's policy miscalculations over the East Timor ballot—and Labor will hold the Government to account.You can guarantee that. Then Peter Hartcher—we are going through every single foreign policy commentator in the Australian media; there are too few of them, but we are going through every one—says:Howard and Co. need to understand that this is not a joust with Labor in the Parliament. This is serious. Carelessness in a crisis is not helping the East Timorese, and it is not helping Australia.There is Karen Middleton, who says:John Howard's success in mobilising a peacekeeping force does not erase the responsibility his government must take for how it all came to this. In accepting Indonesia's guarantees it showed flawed judgment.Paul Lyneham says:By what God-given right did Australia, with all the intelligence at its fingertips, decide that proceeding with the ballot was worth the mass slaughter? Let's not forget that our troops are going into danger because of the greatest stuff-up ever in Australian foreign policy.Even the foreign minister's own former adviser, Greg Hunt, wrote last week:It may be true that Indonesia would never have allowed peacekeepers in before the vote, yet its acquiescence after only a week must make this view suspect. The question for Australia is whether we could have saved more lives by taking the steps we have taken this week three months ago.I am being heckled constantly across the chamber with `Well, what did Labor do?' The simple fact is that you were on watch when the change took place in Indonesia and it was your duty to respond.If this were the United Kingdom parliament, where there have been 400 years of discourse on foreign and defence policy and where they take seriously policy failure in this area, these procedures would have been preceded or accompanied by the resignations of the defence minister and foreign minister and by heated problems for the Prime Minister. Indeed, when policy failure occurred regarding the Falklands, Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary—a very good foreign secretary—resigned forthwith, and the defence minister said, `I will resign immediately the dispatch is over.'But what have we seen from this government in this period of time? What we have seen basically is this: a Prime Minister with an uncertain trumpet, a foreign minister giggling in the alcoves of international diplomacy, and a defence minister who has spent the bulk of the last six months working out how to sack his secretary at a point in time when he knew, from the moment President Habibie set this policy process in place, that peacekeepers would be an issue.There is not in this a failing of intelligence. This is accountability. It may be hard for the government, but it is accountability. If we do not have accountability in this place, with many unresolved issues yet to be dealt with, then there will be policy failure as we deal with those unresolved issues as well.We had reports from the Defence Intelligence Organisation from 4 March this year, which said:ABRI could apprehend or easily control pro-Indonesian militias but has not chosen to do so. . . . unless Jakarta takes firm action, ABRI elements will continue to support intimidation and violence . . . Xanana Gusmao wrote a letter in March this year arguing for the deployment of an international security presence for the ballot. During the same period, in April the militia carried out an infamous massacre, killing 45 civilians in a church in Liquica. As one of the many accurate predictions of what would subsequently occur, only made some time ago, the military commander of Dili, Colonel Tono Suratman, publicly threatened that if the East Timorese voted for independence `all will be destroyed and East Timor won't be as we see it now'. To this we can add the assessment of two others. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said in his report of 25 May 1999 to the Security Council:Despite repeated assurances that measures would be taken by the Indonesian authorities to ensure security in East Timor and curtail the illegal activities of the armed militias, I regret to inform the Security Council that credible reports continue to be received of political violence, including intimidation and killings by armed militias against unarmed pro-independence civilians.When the opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Laurie Brereton, pointed out the need for peacekeepers as early as February this year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs sneered in response:. . . we still hear the call from the bunyip Napoleons for Australia to send heavily armed peacekeeping forces immediately to East Timor.Finally, there is recognition from the government that at the highest levels they did recognise the danger that sources on the ground were warning them of. The Prime Minister, John Howard, said in his address in July to Georgetown University:Whatever the outcome of the UN ballot some groups will contest it.Alexander Downer said on Meet the Press on 5 September:. . . we always expected that this would be an extremely tense period, that the losers, being the militias, would be pretty violent in their response to the ballot.When asked by Fran Kelly, `Did you ever think things would break down so quickly?' he responded:Yes, I did think there was a very real risk of that. I obviously have thought that.So from multiple sources—sources not available to the opposition but available to the government day in, day out—there were intelligence reports on precisely what was happening on the ground. The government's argument is that there is little that they could have done. The government's argument is that the situation in relation to the Indonesians rendered them helpless; there was nothing more that they could do.The Prime Minister recounts his meeting with President Habibie at which the Prime Minister raised with him the issue of a UN peacekeeping force to enter Timor before the ballot. President Habibie evidently then shouted at him that he would not consider it; there would be no consideration given to this. The Prime Minister left. He subsequently had his conversations with the Americans and others. We do not know exactly what transpired, except this one thing: he did not and this government did not press upon the United States, the United Nations or any other interlocutors a requirement for absolute security to be put in place for the ballot and the protection of the population afterwards. We know he did not do that. From other press reports, we have evidence that when this became a source of sufficient concern for the Portuguese, for example, to consider calling off the ballot until the security of the people could be guaranteed we sent officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to discourage them from pursuing that course, evidently the argument being, `If we don't have a vote now, we'll never have a vote.'If there had been no vote, that would have been a problem for the Indonesians, but the fact that it proceeded was a problem for every single family on Timor. That was the problem for them. Then there was that conversation with the United States. There, I think, was the most serious of our policy failures. From the time President Habibie discussed the possibility of a ballot and from the time it became evident that there would have to be some form of peacekeeping operations involved, it was obvious to everybody in this country that Australian military forces in some shape or form would be committed. From the time we signed the United States alliance, the cardinal responsibility of Australian defence ministers, foreign affairs ministers and prime ministers in those sorts of circumstances, particularly in our region, is to engage them. When you engage them it is not a chat at a lunch. When you engage them it is a full court press of all concerned—defence ministers, foreign ministers and prime ministers going into all the power centres to urgently create in their minds the view that they have a problem they have to deal with.84CTHOMPSONMr Cameron Thompson—You never did this in your life.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Somebody said I never did this in my life. Let me tell you something, my friend. When I was Minister for Defence and had serious matters to discuss with the Americans, you did not just wander around at a lunchtime meeting to determine what views to put across; you sat down with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, you sat down with the Secretary of the Office of Defence, you sat down with the President, you sat down with the Chairman of the National Security Council. You did not leave it to the off-chance that some note-taker, in between picking up the soup spoon, would note that the Australian Prime Minister had a problem with this; you went to put it through a process that would be staffed right down the line. When you do that you do it through the normal processes of consultation. I ask myself why, in that extraordinary visit of the Prime Minister, there was not a session with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs—most Australian prime ministers do go and see them—and why there was not a session with the Secretary of Defence; why it was that these matters were so gravely neglected. Because the benefits of doing something different are quite obvious.The benefit of doing something quite different is what ultimately happened. When the United States was finally engaged and started to carry some of the diplomatic weight, instantly there was a response. Thank God the APEC meeting took place when it did and focused President Clinton on this region as a result. That was a happy accident. It was a happy accident for the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. What that meant was that finally, due to no great effort by the Australians, the Americans were focused. We have seen all the leaks coming out of Washington now about the annoyance in sections of the American administration about the extent to which we informed or advised them of the concerns that we had. We see that annoyance now flowing through. They were not informed and they were not involved, and that was a dereliction.The truth of the matter is, as the Prime Minister knows, that our cachet with the Indonesians runs only so far and runs nowadays nowhere at all. We have cashed in every chip that we have had in the relationship with Indonesia—every single one. There is only one nation with whom we have an alliance that can make a substantial contribution to these activities in the future and could have in the past, and that is the United States. The United States has considerable capacity, economically and militarily, to influence the affairs of Indonesia and influence the affairs of this region. The Prime Minister found it necessary to rehearse the history from his point of view. I find it necessary to rehearse the history from the point of view that we want to put forward, because if nothing is learned from the last six months then there will be mistakes made in the next six. If nothing is learned, for example, about the critical role of the United States in this regard, if they are not now intensely engaged, we will have additional problems that we need not otherwise have. That is why every single serious foreign policy journalist wrote about policy failure. That is the simple reason why every single foreign policy journalist—most of whom have given this government, we would say, from time to time more than a fair crack of the whip over the course of the last three years—pointed to the failure. Why? Because that is exactly what happened.Now we turn to look at the future and what we ought to be doing from this point on. What we all hope is what the Prime Minister hoped for. What we all hope—and we take comfort to some degree in what President Habibie has had to say—is that there will now be a ballot, that that ballot will produce a resolution for independence and that in producing a resolution for independence there will be a transition government put in place. We all hope that the Indonesians authorities will ensure the safe transition back to East Timor of all those people who are now scattered through different parts of Indonesia, that this will occur without any further loss of life and that they will have the support and food that they need. We all hope that our peacekeepers—our peace interveners, if you like—will be able to switch over to a peace keeping operation, that our troops will be safe and that they will be able to come home.If these things happen, and we all pray that they do, it will be in marked contrast to every single thing which has happened to this point. Therefore, we have to be alert to the possibility that these things may not occur on schedule or in detail in the way which we both have described to be our hopes. That is why there has to be a thoroughgoing, continuing engagement of the international community, both the United Nations and the United States. Most immediately, it has to be to those probably hundreds of thousands who are now outside Timor. Most particularly it has to be devoted to that, because there is nothing that we can do about their situation—nothing at all. We have a mandate for operations in East Timor and nowhere else. There is nothing more that Australia can do. We can offer of course to provide safe transit, we can offer to provide a temporary location here, and we should do those things. I understand the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is working on it. But over the course of the next few months we must mobilise a community in which we have sounded a most uncertain trumpet, if we are going to be able to secure that outcome.Then, of course, we need to have our concerns for the Australian soldiers as well: their equipment needs and the need for them to be effectively rotated, if they have to be, down the line. The Prime Minister was proud of the fact that he brought one battalion up to the current level of readiness. We praised him for that at the time, and I might say that in my remarks in a speech the other week I paid due tribute to that as well. That has been one of the good things that has occurred in the last little while in terms of our readiness to be able to deal with that. But we cannot escape the fact that we now have the smallest number of personnel under arms since the 1960s really.ET4BEVISMr Bevis—Since 1962.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The smallest number since 1962. We must not kid ourselves that great strain has not been placed on it. How much better it would have been if the government had, for example, had available to them the Ready Reserve. How much more valuable it would have been to them in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves. If this goes any length of time, we are probably going to have to raise several more battalions. Where they are to be available from is not immediately apparent, but it would have been immediately apparent if the Ready Reserve was there.Then we have to worry about the status of the reserves themselves. At the moment they are 2,300 under the level that has been mandated for them by the government. They are in that situation in no small measure because of the uncertainty that they face in regard to their employment. Reserve service is no longer an allowable matter in relation to awards. There are no guarantees of employment, not even in the Commonwealth sector, if reservists find themselves called out and deployed. They cannot be deployed overseas on a call-out but they can volunteer on call-out. Are they to be protected? Much thought needs to go into that over the course of the next couple of weeks for preparedness to be appropriately established. If this goes on for more than a year, it will be almost impossible, without placing undue stress on the folk who are already there, to do it without some form of usage of the reserves in some capacity. So that is something that we must get absolutely right over this next period of time.Then there is the situation of our views on the outcome that we seek. I have outlined our views on the outcome that we seek, but I also express the view that there are many problems that we are likely to confront with that. There needs to be an all-court press in the United Nations now, a daily effort to ensure that this decision of the Indonesian parliament goes through satisfactorily and that the transition arrangements are put in place effectively. That has to be a priority commitment.Then there is our long-term relationship with Indonesia, which now lies in tatters. This is not something that we as a country can view with indifference. It is possibly not something that we can do a great deal about immediately, but it is something of course which we will have to work on. We can be encouraged by this: that the diligent work that successive governments have put into the Asian region, including the diligent work in particular that we put into the Asian region, has at least in part underpinned such an excellent response from the Asian region. That is something which we can take some joy in, but it will require a substantial diplomatic effort to keep the nations who have been our interlocutors in the Asian region focused.Then there is the long-term situation of our defence forces. We are now beginning to understand again the value of public investment in public goods. We in this country are now beginning to come to grips with that again after the demonisation of it for the last few years and its demonisation at the state level. Part of the consequences of that is that we need a rightly resourced defence force in order to be able to deal with it.We also need a properly planned defence force. It is not a sensible thing to permanently structure your defence forces for intervention; it is necessary to so structure your defence forces that you can have a rapid build-up for it if you need to. It is important that we get our defence philosophies right and our military strategy right, and our military strategy must be based on the defence of Australia's regional approaches and mainland. That is what it must be based on and all segments of the defence forces need attention in that regard, not least because we now have a bow wave of acquisition problems developing in the course of the next 10 years and we must have a very intelligent approach to how that ought to be dealt with if we are actually going to be able to get in place a situation that we would consider desirable as far as that is concerned.We must also make certain, in the way in which we structure our defence forces, that those defence forces do serve our diplomatic needs as well in being able to assure the nations around us in the region that we wish them no ill and that what we have in place is something that suits Australia's defence needs. I well recollect, ironically, going to Indonesia to explain to the Indonesians that the shift of our armed forces to Darwin was not something aimed at them. I doubt very much whether I will be believed when I subsequently have more about that to say.Just as I have praised the government for bringing that force—that one element of their defence policy—to a level of readiness, we must also reflect on the fact that, if we were mobilising from Puckapunyal and Holsworthy, it would have been a very different staging problem that we would have been confronting over the last little while. The shift of our defence forces to the north and west have at least, in terms of this particular deployment, paid a dividend as far as our capacity has been in place there to deal with it. Now we are going to need to return to real growth in the Defence vote. It will not be sufficient to stand up and defend it on the grounds that you excluded it from cuts. We will need to return to real growth for our defence forces.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—You ask me what my policy was. When I was defence minister we had real growth in the defence forces budget. That was when I happened to be defence minister. If that is what you want to fling at me, fine. When I was defence minister we had real growth in our defence forces, old son. We averaged around 2.3 per cent of GDP—since you raise it—and if we were at that level now we would be spending four billion a year more on defence. But we set that to one side.Also, as we look forward we need to work out how we can help establish an appropriate polity in Timor itself. We need to focus on the needs and concerns of the Timorese refugees. We need to focus on the needs and concerns of those trying a reconciliation process in an effort to form a government. Much of this they may well want to do from parts of Australia. This is going to be a very difficult thing for us because it will ultimately affect our relationships with Indonesia. One of the things that we are going to have to convince the Timorese about is that, as much as in the long term we would need—or it would be desirable for us to have—Indonesia as a friend, it will be vastly more important to them that they have Indonesia as a friend. This is going to require of the Timorese people a level of forgiveness that no nation yet has been capable of sustaining, yet it is utterly essential for their survival.So these are the tasks before us. They are not easy tasks, any of them. They are not going to be made any easier by glossing over errors, whether they have been made by us when we were in office or by this government in the course of the last six to nine months. We are going to have face facts because unless there is a culture—as there is now in other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom—of facing facts when we deal with the foreign policy imbroglios and the foreign policy errors that we do make from time to time then you learn nothing. You become like the Bourbons: you forget nothing and you learn nothing. That is what you become, and they were dealt with subsequently by other forces in the French political system. So we have to be utterly realistic about how we got to this point and we have to be absolutely clear on how we get out of it, and we require an accurate historical record in order to be able to do so.Finally, we need to reflect on the people who are there now paying the price of any errors that we have made, and paying the price of the establishment of an independent East Timor. We need to reflect on them and their families and express again the enormous affection that we have for their families. They are a responsibility of us all, and they will need appropriate counselling and advice, and they will need appropriate resourcing so that they can stay in contact with their loved ones. From this point on, they need to operate with the fullest possible understanding, the fullest possible recompense, where that is needed, and the fullest possible support as families. I hope an early response from the government will be to change the policy in relation to accounting and fringe benefits tax arrangements.The men themselves need to be convinced that they will get a ready ear on all of the equipment that they need and on all that they need in terms of their physical comfort in this situation that they now find themselves confronting. They need to be assured, above all, that they have the complete and absolute support of everybody in this chamber, and everybody in this country, and they have.15:24:0010040Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I think it is appropriate, as this House today reviews recent events that have occurred in East Timor, that I begin by recognising the extraordinary efforts of the Prime Minister. He has, in my view, and I believe in the view of the Australian community—certainly wherever I have been in recent times—displayed intelligent leadership, very real courage and a huge commitment to what is right. It is also only fair at the outset to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Their determination and dedication to achieve a peaceful outcome to this crisis has been without rest in recent times.We, of course, acknowledge the enormous efforts others have made to this point in time, that are being made now and those yet to be made by such people as the Federal Police. I had the honour—the rather emotional honour—of briefly meeting some of them returning to Australia at the airport recently. They had seen things that probably beggar description and that they will find hard to talk about for a long time. They were feeling very emotional about it, and I record my respect for what they have done. I know that all of us, as has already been said this place, in every way, send our very best wishes and our total support to those who go on our behalf to this troubled part of the world.Whilst I do not in any way want to politicise the very real issues before us, I cannot allow the essential position put before us by the Leader of the Opposition to go unchallenged. It seems to me that he has rested the credibility of Labor's alternative position very largely on their supposed position that they would have had a peacekeeping force of some sort in there early. Indeed, that was evidenced by Kim Beazley in a doorstop here at Parliament House just five days ago when he said:We said at a very early stage there needed to be an effective peacekeeping operation for a vote and that if there wasn't certain consequences would flow.Just the day before that, he said:If we had had control of the situation, we would have made sure that the peacekeeping arrangements matched the threat. This is not hindsight, we were saying it at the time.But I have to record that that is not what he was saying at the time. It is a matter of record that needs to go on the record in this debate that that is not what he was saying. On February 10, in another doorstop outside this very place, he commented:I would be against the overseas deployment of Australian troops in circumstances where there is not agreement within a community that they wanted a peacekeeping role performed.A little later, on March 3, while commenting about the potential activities of the militia, he said that it would require very considerable effort on the part of the Indonesians to ensure that any outbreak of unlawful or indecent activities by the militia does not occur. In Perth, his home city, on 6 April, he again said:But the issue of stabilisation on the ground in the first instance is fundamentally a problem for the Indonesian authorities and they need to act.On 22 April he said:It has to be done by the Indonesian military and the Indonesian military has to get ownership of this, if that is at all possible, but in the long term, as the Labor Party has said repeatedly, we do not rule out Australian troops as part of a peacekeeping operation at all.We talk about the reinvention of history; we have unfortunately heard a little of it this afternoon. It is very important that the record be corrected. Finally, on 15 July, which is not long ago, at a doorstop in Darwin a journalist asked Mr Beazley, `Is it time to bring in the UN peacekeepers?' and the Leader of the Opposition replied, `Well, you want to be guided by the UN now on this.'It is not my intention to politicise the very important issues that we are discussing today, but I think it is important that the record be set straight. Without going over ground that was put very eloquently by the Prime Minister of this nation this afternoon, I want to make some remarks and refer a little to history because I think it reflects, in an interesting way, our commitment to and our relationship with the East Timorese. To remind the House, it is a little over two weeks ago, September 4, that that ballot referendum was announced. Since then we have seen the most dreadful civil unrest and crisis. The attention of the world has been brought to bear on that crisis. The forces of goodwill have been marshalled. Strong United Nations resolutions have been argued and secured and, as we speak, a peacekeeping force of 12 nations is on the ground re-establishing peace and safety for the people of East Timor. The international reaction to the East Timor crisis has been in the circumstances—particularly in a historical context—very swift and certain. The reason it has been so has been largely due to the determination of Australia and its senior ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular.The Prime Minister can take great pride in what he has achieved in these two weeks. I know the Australian people also take great pride in what he has done, because he has acted as we would have seen fit. He has delivered things that perhaps we would have wished for but perhaps we might have thought beyond us. Australians expected nothing else than that we would do all in our power to help the East Timorese.To help us understand why Australians feel this way, it is useful to look back at Australia's engagement in East Timor in the dark days of World War II, nearly 60 years ago. In particular, it is interesting to recall the experiences of the 2nd/2nd Australian Independent Company in East Timor during 1942. Their story starts in December 1941 when the 2nd/2nd was landed in West Timor as part of Sparrow Force to defend the island against expected Japanese attack.After a couple of days the 2nd/2nd was moved on to secure the aerodrome at Dili in East Timor. The main force—an infantry battalion, with heavy artillery and anti-aircraft batteries, plus an anti-tank troop and engineering, medical and service detachments—was hard hit by disease, dysentery and malaria, by the loss of stores and by the failure of a convoy containing US reinforcements to break through a Japanese air blockade.When a strong Japanese force did indeed invade Timor on the night of 19 February 1942, the main part of Sparrow Force was significantly weaker than planned and was forced to surrender on the 23rd. Meanwhile, around Dili, the 2nd/2nd Independent Company—some 17 officers and 273 other ranks—had destroyed Dili aerodrome within a couple of hours of the Japanese landing and had literally taken to the hills. For the next seven months they fought a most extraordinary battle against overwhelming odds.The independent companies were so named because they were designed to be able to fight independently of other units. They were basically three infantry platoons each of 67 men, and it should be noted that each company also had its own engineering and signal sections as well as its own medical officer. They were hand picked; their average age was 25; and they were selected for physical fitness, mental stamina and initiative. They were given special training at Wilson's Promontory in Victoria under deliberately tough conditions to build them into highly disciplined units capable of raiding into enemy territory and living off the land. If they sound like the modern SAS or commandos, that is exactly what they were—the first real commandos in the Australian armed forces. In fact their survivors formed the Australian Commando Association and have been adopted by the SAS, with whom they maintain a very close association.But in early 1942 they were also untried soldiers—the unit had existed for less than six months, the company as a whole had trained for barely two months, and the officers and NCOs had had only six weeks of specialist training. Their company of about 300 faced a force of about 15,000 Japanese. One of their commanding officers, Lieutenant Bernard Callinan, assessed their strength on arrival in Timor using words such as `inexperience' and `young', and while believing that his soldiers had great personal strength, his prognosis excluded any prospect of leaving Timor alive.They also found out within a short period that they were by themselves. They lost their radio link with the main force shortly after the Japanese landed and, with the surrender of the main force, they realised that Army Headquarters in Darwin was unaware that the company still existed at all. A research paper prepared by the Australian War Memorial describes their situation as follows:They were short of food and ammunition, and constant movement over rocky mountain trails wore away at their boots. There was no chance of leave, rest or reinforcement and since arrival on Timor the men had suffered from persistent bouts of malaria, dysentery and other debilitating tropical conditions. Under such potentially overwhelming conditions, the success of this small band of Australians in outwitting the well-equipped and vastly superior numbers of Japanese troops was outstanding.The men found great resources within themselves through people like their medical officer, Captain Roger Dunkley, and his team, who battled the diseases and the conditions so the fight against the Japanese could continue. There were others such as Signalman Loveless who, together with Captain George Parker and other operators, collected together bits of salvaged radio equipment from around the place and built `Winnie the War Winner', a scrap wireless which gave a signal just powerful enough to be picked up in Darwin. The faint morse from `Winnie' on 19 April gave Darwin headquarters the first inkling that Australians were still fighting on Timor with the message: `The Timor force is intact and still fighting. Badly need boots, medicine, money and Tommy gun ammunition.'By the time the first resupplies reached them, the young and untried soldiers of the 2nd/2nd had also become hard men. A crewman of HMAS Vigilant, one of the ships that ferried supplies through from Darwin in a series of hazardous night runs, remembered his first visit this way:As soon as we had touched, out of the adjacent bushes sprang a most ferocious-looking group of men one could imagine. I guessed these were the locals. They were dark-skinned, long-haired and bearded and emitting sounds like some fierce tribe. They were wearing what appeared to be sarongs.As they ran towards us, reasoning they were the local natives, I wondered whether our men were far away. To my surprise, these Wild Men from Borneo turned out to be Australian soldiers.This fierce tribe, despite their small numbers, was having a marked effect on the morale of Japanese troops. As Lieutenant Callinan later wrote:Japanese soldiers told natives that the Australians were devils who jumped out of the ground, killed some Japanese and then disappeared, whilst their officers complained that though they had been fighting them for months, many had never seen an Australian.The Australians had an additional weapon in their battles against the Japanese—and that weapon was the people of East Timor. As one of those soldiers, Gordon Martin reported:We lived a bandit-like existence in the hills, making friends with the natives in our areas. They provided food, porters, built us houses, some acted as personal servants, and generally made our existence possible.The close relationship between the Australians and the East Timorese is best instanced by the `creado' system—young Timorese who became personal assistants to Australian soldiers. Gordon Martin described the relationship in these terms:I have seen my boy race with me under heavy fire to a native hut, and whilst I collected my rifle and ammunition, he packed all my gear with Vickers machine gun bullets zipping through the hut, before jumping with me out of a back window.Others have been with us in ambushes and when we were in danger of being surrounded raced out under fire with us carrying the Bren gun and chuckling all the time at the damage we have done.The stories of the 2nd/2nd leave absolutely no doubt that those Australian soldiers could not have survived, let alone fought so effectively, if it had not been for the assistance they were given by those East Timorese people. It formed a bond which the Australians brought home with them—and thanks to the East Timorese many of them did make it home.The Australians in that terrible situation were first reinforced with the 2nd/4th Company in September 1942, but the loss of the destroyer HMAS Voyager during this landing, and an increasing Japanese presence on East Timor, led to the evacuation of the independent brigades in November. As the first Australian commandos, the Australians who came back from East Timor brought back with them an important part of Australia's military history, but they also brought back a deep and abiding appreciation of the lifesaving assistance of the East Timorese. The Australians owed a debt, and they left behind mates.Those men went into all walks of Australian life. There were bankers and bricklayers amongst them. Kevin Curran was commissioned in the field in Timor and played Australian Rules for Hawthorn and Victoria. Colin Doig was one of B Platoon's section commanders. He went on to be one of the stalwarts of the 2nd/2nd Commando Association and for many years edited the association's magazine. Bernard Callinan was captain and field commander in East Timor. He went on to be one of Australia's most distinguished civil engineers. He was chairman and managing director of Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey for many years and, as Sir Bernard Callinan, he was the Chairman of the Parliament House Construction Authority, which oversaw the construction of the very building we are in today.In communities all over Australia, and especially in places like the little town of Mandurah in Western Australia, where many 2nd/2nd veterans settled over the years, the story of East Timor in 1942 has been preserved and the debt owed to people of East Timor has been remembered. Australians are not an aggressive people by nature. We seek to live in harmony with all our neighbours in the region. We have no argument with the people of Indonesia, but Australians have a proud and cherished history in our own democracy. We recognise and support the democratic aspirations of other people. We also have a reputation for standing by our mates—something which is at the very heart of the Australian character but is often difficult to explain to others.Faced with the suffering of the people of East Timor, and remembering what their fathers had done to help our fathers, Australians felt and expressed that feeling that we had to do all that we could to help, in a way that I have not experienced in my 10½ years in this place. That help is now being delivered through a very clear mandate from the United Nations under Security Council resolution 1264, which was adopted unanimously on 15 September. The Security Council, having determined that the present situation in East Timor constitutes a threat to peace and security, has given the INTERFET force full chapter VII powers and legal authority to defend itself and to take whatever action is necessary to implement its mandate. That mandate has three elements: to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support UNAMET and to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations. Those are the aims of the Australian involvement.I emphasise again that we are not alone in this endeavour. We have been joined by countries of ASEAN, the region and the world. Thailand has supplied the second-in-command of INTERFET plus an infantry platoon supported by helicopters, naval vessels, aircraft, engineering and medical teams. Singapore has committed armoured and medical planning teams. The Philippines has committed a task force comprising engineering, medical and security elements. Malaysia and Korea are still finalising their contributions. New Zealand is deploying a mechanised infantry company, special forces personnel, naval vessels, aircraft, helicopters and a medical team. From further afield, very valued and valuable contributions are being made by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Brazil. A further 10 countries have expressed a willingness to contribute.Many Australians realised that our actions might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by some, including Indonesia. It is worth making very strongly the point that that misunderstanding is unfortunate, particularly in the context that Australia has no broader objective in mind. We wish the Indonesian people well. We seek a long and secure relationship with Indonesia, based on mutual respect. As the Prime Minister said, it is in all of our interests.Our objective in this instance is quite simple: we wish to ensure that the aspirations so clearly expressed by the people of East Timor on 30 August are fully and safely realised. I wish all the troops of the INTERFET force good fortune and a safe return home. I wish the people of East Timor and Indonesia a peaceful and fruitful future. There is a long way to go; there is a great deal of work to be done.There are many complex issues that have to be confronted and worked through, but I do not believe that any reflection other than great credit can be made upon the leadership of this government in these difficult times. I know that the overwhelming goodwill of the Australian people is certainly there for our troops in the task that we have asked of them. Those who join them from other nations are also included in that expression of goodwill, as is the leadership of this government.15:42:0010044Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in support of the resolution before the House. The most important thing for us to do this day is to demonstrate on behalf of the Australian people the parliament's bipartisan and unanimous support for the Australian men and women involved in Operation Stabilise in East Timor. They go with a vital mission—to restore peace and security to what should be the world's newest independent nation but is now a territory torn apart and savaged by conflict.In giving this support to our troops, we must also do everything possible to secure their safety, to enable them to complete their task and to bring them home. Given the horrors that have been unfolding on the ground over the last weeks and months, we need to do more than just wish them well; we have a duty to ensure their safety. We have a duty to them, to their families and to the wider Australian community.The government's record on East Timor is one of continuing denials. We see it constantly and we have seen it in the interjections today. Denials, bungles and policy failures have all added up to tragic consequences for the East Timorese. The Leader of the Opposition has read at length comments from foreign affairs reporters in the Australian press, highly critical of the Australian government's approach. Greg Sheridan, in the Australian on 16 September—and this quote is very significant because he is a respected journalist in this field—said:This has been a bloody and appalling failure of Australian strategy and policy.This is not Labor saying this; it is people who are paid to observe the field of activity and the way policy development occurs, and that is their judgment. The government have steadfastly resisted calls for peacekeepers in East Timor; in fact, they denied the need for their presence. The government have been in denial, simply wanting to wish this problem away. Even last Sunday, just a day before the troops entered East Timor, the foreign minister was implying that the violence was worth it. He said:. . . there was violence . . . that was a dangerous period. Yes. We certainly expected that.. . . . . . . . .. . .. that period of violence, of course, is profoundly unfortunate, and we deeply regret the violence that has taken place. But, in the end, you will get an independent East Timor. In the end, for those who survived, a happier and more comfortable population.What an appalling assessment and set of comments from this nation's foreign minister.This is by no means the only misjudgment that has been made by the government in relation to this issue. Not only have the government put at risk Australia's diplomatic relationship with Indonesia but they have badly handled relations with Australia's traditional allies. They should have been, both quietly and publicly, lobbying our allies for support for a peacekeeping force, at least since the ballot was proposed. The Prime Minister should have stressed the urgency of the East Timor situation when he met President Clinton at the White House in July, and he did not. He did not raise it even in the formal discussions he had with the President. The first formal, government-to-government request, according to General Shelton, the Chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was on September 8—well after the ballot and after the violence and killing began in East Timor.Instead of doing what they should have been doing, highlighting the significance, the concern and the carnage and speaking to the US about what sort of support could be put together, they did not. They ignored all of that, and that is an appalling judgment from a nation that still holds this alliance important. It is their fault that they have not drawn attention to what was happening. Because of that neglect, they have been forced to run around at the last minute, furiously lobbying and calling frantically for more `boots on the ground'. The international strategic environment has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and yet the Howard government have failed to respond. They have failed to build new alliances and they have failed to reshape the existing ones. The government's defence strategy is built around alliances and yet they are failing to capitalise on them when they are needed most. Instead, they have been forced into panic diplomacy, delivering third rate results and putting Australian lives at risk as a result. The government have sent our troops—Australian men and women—into hostile territory, while failing to secure appropriate conditions of engagement. Full chapter VII powers the United Nations resolution may have, but it has not got provision for the disarmament and disbandment of the militias. And there is no timetable for the withdrawal of all Indonesian military personnel. Indeed, there is no requirement for any withdrawal.The foreign minister said yesterday that the passage of the Security Council resolution establishing INTERFET in just over two weeks might `pretty much break a world record'. But, because of the failure to secure terms of engagement, the resolution is flawed. It is simply not an excuse to say, as the Deputy Prime Minister said in this House yesterday:. . . what was to take place after that poll just a little over two weeks ago, in terms of its extent, in terms of its ugly nature and of the violence that was attended to it, could not have been reasonably foreseen by anyone.That is the Deputy Prime Minister speaking. Here we had a history lesson going back to 1942 but there is no real emphasis on the government's policy approach now or for the future. The Deputy Prime Minister, representing the nation while the Prime Minister was at APEC, went on the Sunday program incapable of answering any questions in the national interest. He may as well not have been there. But this is typical of this government's failure to attend to the detail.There were many clear indications, despite what the Deputy Prime Minister said, that violence would erupt after the poll. The government's own Defence Intelligence Organisation knew this in March. It stated in a report that no vigorous action to rein in ABRI had been noted, implying that General Wiranto was, at the least, turning a blind eye, that further violence was certain, and that Dili would be the focus. That was the advice of the government's own Defence Intelligence Organisation back in March.On the Sunday program on 30 May, Colonel Suratman, the recently departed military commander in Dili, said:If the pro-independents do win, it won't just be the government of Indonesia that has to deal with what follows. The UN and Australia are also going to have to solve the problem. And well if this does happen then there'll be no winners, everything is going to be destroyed. East Timor won't exist as it does now. It'll be much worse than 23 years ago.This is an example of the denial of the Howard government. You have got the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister effectively saying that this was not anticipated when advice was coming to them saying that they should anticipate precisely that. They ignored those warnings. Instead, they were content to rely on the Indonesian military to provide security in the region before, during and after the ballot.Despite the Prime Minister's cries of statesmanship over his letter last year proposing an independence ballot, his government was content to rely on President Habibie's timetable for the ballot instead of adopting the slower transition advocated by Xanana Gusmao and Bishop Belo. The Howard government has displayed weakness throughout the unfolding East Timor crisis. Diplomatic relations have hit such a low that the Indonesian government formally shredded the Australian-Indonesian security pact. The Prime Minister and his Minister for Foreign Affairs need to look seriously at our international relationships. It may be that Australia cannot simply rely on our US alliance; it may be that we can. But it is certainly incumbent upon the government to look with new vigour at our regional alliance arrangements, including bilateral arrangements in particular.The Timor troop commitment has also highlighted the need to review Australia's defence spending. The Treasurer said last week that the cost of the Timor deployment would mean that spending would have to be tightened in other areas. If that is the case, let him nominate the areas of spending cuts, because there seems to be acceptance of the need to do something about defence spending. The Howard government has already cut spending in areas that previously assisted in our relationships in the region. To save just $7 million, for example, it ended Radio Australia transmissions throughout much of Asia. The innovative export development market programs were also slashed. And today we have a business tax package which does not pay for itself. This is a government that cuts essential tools to improve our relationships. It is a government that preaches fiscal discipline but does not practise it. There is a better way to pay for any additional defence spending necessary as a result of East Timor, and that is to grow this economy sustainably and more strongly using some of the increased revenue as that funding source.But the most important issue is not about whether we should spend more; it is about making sure that we use what resources we have to ensure the safety of our troops who are there. I reinforce what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Labor is totally supportive of our troops' efforts in East Timor. They are a brave and dedicated band of men and women determined to end the bloodshed and to restore order to a deeply troubled area. Our thoughts are with them and will constantly be with them and with their families remaining behind here in Australia. Our hearts also go out to the people of East Timor who have suffered so gravely in this conflict. We recognise that the Indonesian government, military and pro-integration militias are separate from the ordinary people and communities of Indonesia. We hope the lives of these ordinary people can continue in peace.We are concerned at the deep policy failures demonstrated by the Howard government throughout the whole affair to date. In all fairness to the Prime Minister, he made a noble attempt at statesmanship when he wrote to the Indonesian government, apparently setting out a proposal for a ballot. But there has been no follow-through from him—and just look at the team that was meant to help him in that follow-through. He has been badly let down by the foreign minister, who is at the table, and by the defence minister. Even his Treasurer has not been of much assistance.First, the foreign minister admitted in parliament on 10 August that he could not read every cable directed to him. This was meant to be an excuse for not being aware of a detailed report of a request from the US military command in the Pacific for agreement to the attachment of Australian military officers to a possible peace enforcement operation in East Timor. It is not very comforting to know that messages of such national significance were not even being seen by our foreign minister.It is especially disconcerting given that the Minister for Defence's only prominent defence related activity in his time as minister has been to sack the secretary to his department. Both of them should have been working to avert the disaster that we are trying to address now, but the divided and preoccupied leadership of the Department of Defence exposed a significant weakness. Australian defence forces deserve better than Mr Moore.The Treasurer has also been playing political games. On 10 September—the day after Labor had called for economic sanctions to be imposed against Indonesia as part of an effort to obtain Indonesia's agreement to an international peacekeeping force—the Treasurer said:Economic sanctions are something that can go on for 10 or 20 or 30 years. They don't fix things in the short term. What we are interested in is doing something now, and that's what we are currently working on.Unfortunately, when he made this statement he had not checked with the Prime Minister as to whether or not sanctions were actually on the agenda. Later in the day, the Prime Minister made it clear that sanctions had not been ruled out and that they were still on the table, with the Treasurer forced to go on Melbourne radio to deny his earlier statement. Neil Mitchell on 3AW asked him:You're reported as saying that you thought economic sanctions and trade sanctions would in fact not fix anything in the short term, is that accurate?To which the Treasurer replied, despite what I have reported before, `No.' He also said:We shouldn't be sitting around saying to ourselves let's do something that will have an effect in ten or twenty years, doesn't mean we should rule that out.If the Howard government had handled the independence ballot with more aplomb, more political nous and more diplomatic sensitivity, perhaps things may not have been as serious as they are today. Certainly, every extra day the peacekeeping force could have been in East Timor the more lives would likely have been saved. Instead, the Howard government has monumentally mishandled the situation.A timetable for the engagement must be established, and a commitment must be sought for the early withdrawal of militia forces as well as a curb on their ability to attack. Australian men and women in East Timor are risking their lives so that the East Timorese may get their own lives back under control, so that the gross abuses of human rights occurring in the area are stopped and so that the results of the UN supervised ballot can be implemented.We do not know how long the Australian troops will be committed to East Timor, but our thoughts and hopes are, and will be, with them during every minute of their assignment. The Howard government must work ceaselessly and tirelessly to ensure their safety. There can be debates about the past, but we have to secure the future. We must deliver a safe present for our troops and a secure future for the people of East Timor and work over time to rebuild the relationship with Indonesia that has been shattered.16:01:0010047Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The starting point for all our discussions today should be this: the decisive vote for independence on 30 August is now an internationally established fact that can never be undone. In announcing the ballot outcome, the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said that the United Nations would not fail the people of East Timor. The international community is determined to ensure that the 5 May agreement is seen through to its conclusion, and that was reflected in the United Nations Security Council open debate on 11 September at which 51 countries made statements expressing their deep concern over the situation in East Timor. There was also the United Nations Security Council resolution of 15 September authorising the establishment of a multinational force.Australia has supported and will continue to support fully the United Nations' work in East Timor, including assisting with the return of UNAMET and the leadership of INTERFET. Before the outcome of the 30 August ballot can be realised, though, there must be restoration of peace and security in East Timor. Anyone who has seen the simply horrible images on our television screens will have been sickened by the appalling violence visited on East Timor since 4 September. In the face of this appalling violence, Australia marshalled all of its diplomatic resources to enable a multinational force to be deployed in East Timor as soon as possible.The goals of the International Force in East Timor, known as INTERFET, are to bring the United Nations process back on track until a United Nations peacekeeping operation can be deployed and to assist the East Timorese people by restoring security and facilitating humanitarian aid. The United Nations Security Council resolution gives a very strong mandate to INTERFET. It has full chapter VII powers. Its mandate is to:. . . restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect and support the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) in carrying out its tasks and, within force capabilities, to facilitate humanitarian assistance operations.The resolution also underscores Indonesia's continuing responsibilities under the 5 May tripartite agreement and its responsibility to ensure the safe return of refugees. It establishes a trust fund to assist member states in providing contributions to INTERFET and, importantly, it also calls for those responsible for human rights violations to be brought to justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the United Nations resolution.Australia, at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General, has accepted the leadership of INTERFET and will also deploy up to 4,500 Australian Defence Force personnel, all of whom will be foremost in our thoughts as they embark on what will most certainly be a difficult and, perhaps, danger ous operation. We have been liaising intensively with regional and other countries to build a genuinely multinational force. I particularly want to welcome Thailand's agreement to provide the INTERFET deputy commander and its large troop contribution. It is vitally important that the force be deployed quickly, and Australia is working with other contributors to ensure this. As you can see from your television screens, that is already under way.A key factor in INTERFET's success will be to restore security and, in that context, it will be important that it receives appropriate support from Indonesia and that an effective relationship is established with TNI. The Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ali Alatas, announced on 15 September that the Indonesian armed forces, known as TNI, would have no active combat role and that overall responsibility for maintaining security would be passed to INTERFET. Military to military talks between Australia and Indonesia have been held to define clearly the role of TNI and its relationship with INTERFET, and General Cosgrove has reported excellent working relations with TNI on the ground so far in his discussions in Dili.Violence has generated a pressing humanitarian crisis in East and West Timor through the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. As I said in question time yesterday, it is impossible to estimate accurately how many East Timorese people have been displaced within and outside East Timor. Estimates do vary widely, but the total could be 300,000 in and outside East Timor, or it could be even more. The government is fully seized of the extent and urgency of the problem and also recognises the enormous Australian community interest in easing the suffering in East and West Timor. Australia has taken the lead in assisting United Nations agencies to get humanitarian assistance to where it is most needed in the shortest possible time.Already we have made an initial commitment of $3 million for support for UN agencies. I am announcing today an additional amount of $4 million to provide logistical support to the humanitarian operation, seed funding for Australian NGOs and funding for the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross. This funding will also support planned activities in West Timor. Darwin has become the jump-off point for international relief operations, and Australian aid staff are on the ground in Darwin, closely coordinating their efforts with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and other international agencies and Australian NGOs.Australian funded food drops to East Timor began on 17 September using RAAF planes, crews and logistical support and will continue as necessary. Ongoing troop deployment, it has to be conceded, restricted the ability to drop food over the past couple of days, but we expect the food drops to resume tomorrow. Australia is also providing warehouse facilities in Darwin for Australian and international relief supplies, with one being used as a world food program logistics centre.I want to underscore that the plight of displaced East Timorese in West Timor is also of enormous concern. Australia is supporting fully efforts by the international community to gain access to displaced East Timorese in West Timor, which remains extremely difficult. Australian aid to the United Nations and other international relief organisations will help support international operations in West Timor. INTERFET will be doing its utmost to create a secure environment in East Timor in which the East Timorese feel safe to return from across the border. We have given refuge to over 1,500 East Timorese in Australia during the crisis.The East Timorese people have made their choice and we are now poised at the birth of a new, independent East Timor. Australia is ready to assist, including through reconstruction and development. We have long been the largest provider of development assistance in East Timor, and we will continue to be unstinting in our assistance in future. If East Timor is to achieve peace and start the long process of recovery, there must be reconciliation amongst the East Timorese people. We have seen the terrible consequences of the current cycle of hatred in the suffering of an entire population. Australia is willing to help reconciliation in whatever way we can. We urge the different groups in East Timor to work together, in cooperation with the United Nations, to put behind them the violence of the past for the sake of future generations.While our attention is naturally focused on East Timor, I think it is important to say something about Australia's broader relationship with Indonesia. I stress that our interest in the East Timor issue is not, as some might think, divorced from our deep and abiding interest in seeing a strong, prosperous and democratic Indonesia—an Indonesia which has good cooperative relations with the international community; an Indonesia where human rights and freedoms are respected. Australia has been a firm supporter of Indonesia's democratic transformation. Indeed, there has been no firmer supporter anywhere in the world. We have done our utmost to help ordinary Indonesians cope with the impact of the economic crisis. Australia has demonstrated its goodwill towards Indonesia over many years, starting from our support for Indonesia's struggle for independence.Clearly, there have been strains in the relationship recently. We have suspended certain aspects of military to military relations in light of the well-documented failings of TNI. The Indonesian decision to abrogate the agreement on maintaining security was also not surprising. But, despite this, our long-term interests have not changed. We continue to believe that Indonesia is vital to the stability and prosperity of our region, and we have no interest whatsoever in undermining Indonesia or the people of Indonesia.It has been for this reason, among others, that we want to see the East Timor issue finally resolved, and for it to cease being an obstacle in Indonesia's relations with the international community, including the international financial community. The opportunity to solve the problem in a cooperative way remains. I was encouraged in this regard by my discussions in New York with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, and I look forward to rebuilding friendships and the relationship with Indonesia as we work together to overcome current difficulties.No normal human being could fail to be dismayed and outraged by subsequent events in East Timor, but it does not help the East Timorese one jot to apportion blame recklessly and self-righteously to those who have been working hard to resolve the issue. The fact is that in the past year no country has done more to assist the people of East Timor realise their right to a free and fair vote on their own future than has Australia. And no country has done more to try to prevent violence there, both before and after the ballot. These are judgments that we have heard from leaders across the globe, and from objective leaders of the East Timorese community.The breadth of Australia's support for the ballot process is illustrated by our unwavering support for UNAMET. We are the largest single donor country to UNAMET, with $20 million in financial and logistical support and a major contribution of personnel to UNAMET, including the largest civilian police contingent and an Australian as the CIVPOL commissioner. We have made unmatched efforts to encourage support for UNAMET from the international community, not just diplomatic but financial and logistical. We also established the Australian Consulate in Dili in June, the only representation of its kind in East Timor. I think it is important to understand that East Timor is an important issue for the international community, and has been for a quarter of a century, and that no country on earth has done more to resolve that problem than has this country over the last year.I do not want to dwell too much on the critique that we have heard today of the government's policy, because all of us accept that it is the nature of our political system that oppositions feel the burden of having to make criticisms of the government no matter what happens. To suggest that the violence in East Timor that we saw immediately after the ballot is the responsibility of the Australian government and the people of Australia is utterly absurd. The weight of criticism on the government's handling of the question of East Timor would appear to be that we did not send a peacekeeping force into East Timor before the last few days.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—You didn't press for one; that is the issue.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—The opposition spokesman says that we did not request one.5T4BRERETONMr Brereton—Press for one; not request one.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER—Before dealing with some of these fallacies, let me deal with the opposition. The opposition spokesman on foreign affairs claims that the opposition wanted to see a peacekeeping force inserted before the result of the ballot was announced. But the record of the Leader of the Opposition's comments on this issue is slightly different. In Perth on 22 April 1999 a journalist asked the Leader of the Opposition, `Well, what about troops? What about sending troops into East Timor?' On 22 April the Leader of the Opposition said, `Well, I don't think that is actually necessary.'To say that the opposition somehow wanted to send in a peacekeeping force before the result of the ballot was announced is simply proven to be incorrect by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition spokesman made these comments from time to time, but the Leader of the Opposition never supported the opposition spokesman. Indeed, on 15 July—after all, that is not all that long ago—a journalist said to the Leader of the Opposition at a doorstop interview in Darwin, `Is it time to bring in the United Nations peacekeepers?' The Leader of the Opposition said, `Well, you want to be guided by the UN now on this.'I know the party political point here is that apparently Australia is entirely responsible for all of this, but to be guided by the UN is to be guided by the Secretary-General of the UN, is to be guided by Ian Martin, is to be guided by I think very good, very dedicated and very hardworking and honourable people in the UN. To take up the Leader of the Opposition's point, they obviously realised that whether or not it was desirable to have peacekeepers in East Timor before the result of the ballot was announced, it simply was not possible.One of the bases of the opposition's argument is the constant reiteration of selected quotes from a cable that was leaked of a conversation between the secretary to my department, Ashton Calvert, who has done a simply outstanding job in managing this extraordinarily difficult issue on behalf of the department, and the US Assistant Secretary of State, Stanley Roth, in February this year. The conclusion drawn from this selective leak was that Australia had always been opposed to peacekeepers going to East Timor. We have not always been opposed to peacekeepers going to East Timor. The Prime Minister certainly raised it with President Habibie at the Bali summit and Dewi Fortuna Anwar, President Habibie's foreign affairs adviser, said yesterday at a press conference that the Prime Minister had raised it on three occasions in the course of that summit. So to say that Australia had always opposed peacekeepers going to East Timor is simply belied by the fact that the peacekeepers are now there—obviously we had not opposed it.Let us come back to the so-called Calvert-Roth cable and bury this fallacy. While I do not want to be drawn further into publicising further aspects of the leaked cable, I do want to quote from another part of the cable to illustrate that, as far back as February, Australia was indeed thinking of different contingencies. Dr Calvert is quoted as saying to Mr Roth:Our approach did not preclude preparation for a possible worst-case scenario, and Australian planners were giving close attention to that, including the possibility of military deployment.With the benefit of further explanation, Roth agreed that the Australian approach would keep a wide number of options open, and did not preclude the peacekeeping possibility.The opposition spokesman has taken a selected quote and given it to Greg Sheridan, and all those sorts of people whom the Leader of the Opposition quotes, and concentrated on the selected quote, as he did with the intelligence report yesterday. From a whole intelligence report he took out one sentence and said to the press gallery, `Look, that shows that the intelligence community has been ordered by the government to change its assessment'—one sentence. It is a long report of several pages. I appreciate that he may feel embarrassed now to leak the whole thing, which would be good; it would not be good if he did that, so let me not encourage him. I draw the House's attention to the fact that, if you read the whole report, you draw a very different conclusion, as you do if you read the whole of the Calvert-Roth telegram.If Australia had been Pollyanna-esque about the possible outcomes after the ballot, why would we have prepared our military as we did? Our military were prepared because we were concerned. We were worried. We thought there were risks and that we might have to go in to try to fix it up. We were the best prepared of any country to deal with that contingency. So to say that we were not prepared, that we were negligent and asleep on the job is simply proven to be false by the very existence of Australian leadership of this multinational force right now. If we had just accepted assurances, why would we have increased our readiness? Because we were prepared, we were able to put together a multinational force in what has to go down as a world record time. It was simply an extraordinary achievement.There will be the normal party political points made by the Labor Party, but to my dying day I will be very proud of the fact that we spent an enormous amount of time, more than any other country on earth, trying to get freedom for the people of East Timor. In the end, much as I deeply regret the loss of life that has taken place, we will succeed. That success will be a great tribute to Australia, to Australian policy and to all Australians. This is well recognised around the corridors of the United Nations and in the international community. In recent weeks and over the whole of this exercise Australia has won enormous international respect for the very principled and determined stance that we have taken on the issue of East Timor.16:21:0010051Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00—What awfully chosen words for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to finish his speech with today: to his dying day, much as he regrets the deaths in East Timor, he will be proud of what he has achieved. I could not think of a more inappropriate thing to say.Three days before the East Timor vote for independence, the Australian parliamentary observer delegation visited the town of Liquica. We were taken to the churchyard and the priest's residence where, it is now admitted, at least 58, perhaps many more, East Timorese men, women and children were cut to pieces in a bloody slaughter by the pro-integrationist militias on the afternoon of Tuesday, 6 April this year. The victims were corralled in the residence. They were forced down the central passageway and butchered with machetes as they spilled from the doorway. What occurred was the equivalent of another Dili massacre, but without the cameras.This horrific crime was committed under the watchful eyes of the Indonesian military and the police mobile brigade. The police were not inactive: they fired the teargas that drove the victims out of the building and to their deaths. But on the day we visited Liquica all was quiet. There was no trace of the massacre. All the walls had long been whitewashed. The bullet holes were plastered up; the dead long ago trucked away to an unknown mass grave. The fact of what happened at Liquica that April Tuesday is known to us only because witnesses survived, like the priest, Father Rafael. The Australian government knows, too, because not long after the massacre our embassy in Jakarta sent two officers to investigate and to report on these terrible events. Their report left no doubt about the complicity of the Indonesian military and police.On 15 April this year, nine days after that massacre, I visited Jakarta and saw Ali Alatas and Xanana Gusmao. At Xanana's urging, I called for Alexander Downer to release the embassy report on the killings—subject, I should add, to the deletion of the identity of confidential informants. Had the foreign minister done so, the Indonesian military's orchestration of the militia's campaign of violence would have been thrown into stark relief. But the foreign minister refused to release the report: he said it would be irresponsible to do so. Today that report remains secret, tucked away in DFAT's vaults to moulder like so many other reports of East Timor atrocities, until the files are eventually opened in 30 years' time.That is the story of Liquica—the massacre neatly whitewashed, the facts quietly filed away. All this was last April, just five months ago. Today the Australian government defends its East Timor diplomacy, saying that no-one could have predicted the awful events following the ballot. But in truth it had an avalanche of warnings. Every East Timorese leader—Bishop Belo, Xanana Gusmao, Ramos Horta—pleaded for Australia and pleaded for the international community to put security first. They implored us to insist on a transitional process underpinned by three things: reconciliation, disarmament and a UN peacekeeping force.Fourteen days after the Liquica massacre, Father Francisco Barreto sat in my office in Sydney. He came in his capacity as Director of Caritas in East Timor. He also called on the foreign minister in his plea for Australia to do what was required to guarantee security. He sat there and he told me of his dreadful foreboding of what was likely to happen to his people if they were left to the mercy of the militia and their military controllers. I saw him again in East Timor the day after the ballot and the day before the parliamentary delegation returned to Australia. He repeated his fears. Tragically, his foreboding proved all too correct. He was one of the first of the Catholic priests to be assassinated by the militia following the announcement of the ballot results.But even before Liquica, Australia knew what was likely to happen. As this House is acquainted, on 4 March, Australia's Defence Intelligence Organisation gave the government an assessment that pulled no punches. At the time when Foreign Minister Downer was still talking about rogue elements which might or might not be helping the militias, DIO said:The military in East Timor are clearly protecting, and in some instances operating with the militias . . .It said:No vigorous action to reign in the military have been noted implying that General Wiranto is at least turning a blind eye . . . Unless Jakarta takes firm action—DIO said—the military will continue to support intimidation and violence or at least won't prevent it.DIO concluded by saying:Further violence is certain and Dili will be a focus.But of course this was something the Australian government just did not want to hear. After all, Australia was already campaigning to help Jakarta resist any move by the international community for peacekeepers.I made the first of Labor's many calls for peacekeepers in February of this year—and we have made literally hundreds. So let us not have any of this rubbish from the government that there has been any confusion on this side of the House. This went to our shadow ministry, this went to our caucus and this has been the subject of—I repeat—hundreds of calls upon this government to do the right thing.But we now know that when we first made that call in February this year, the Assistant Secretary of State for the United States, the Clinton administration's point man in Asia, was also advocating peacekeepers. That same month he told DFAT secretary Ashton Calvert that it was essential to build a coalition to push for peacekeepers for, as he said, without peacekeepers East Timor would collapse into violence. We know that Calvert, speaking on behalf of the Australian government, scotched Roth's initiative, saying that Australia—without doubt the key player—would not support such an approach. Calvert declared, and I quote from the cabled report:One of the central themes to achieving a resolution was to convince the Timorese that they had to sort themselves out, and to dispel the idea that the UN was going to solve all their problems while they indulged in vendetta and bloodletting.Have you ever heard a more inappropriate view to be expressing in such a one-sided contest with one group of people being chopped to pieces by the militias?At every opportunity, Foreign Minister Downer rubbished the idea of pressing Jakarta to accept peacekeepers, though at times his argument got pretty tortuous. On 14 March this year he said this:We hope that there won't be a need for a peacekeeping force because if you need a peacekeeping force, you need a peace to keep and peace first has to be negotiated and we hope that when the peace is negotiated it will be a peaceful peace that won't require a peacekeeping force.Instead of pressing Jakarta to accept peacekeepers, pressing them to accept an international security presence, the Australian government put all its faith in President Habibie and the fact that General Wiranto stood alongside him at the Bali summit. That was our assessment at the end of the day.This is very clear from the Prime Minister's own words. On his return from Bali, at the press conference that he held outside his office the Prime Minister said:. . . I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the commitments that were made yesterday by both the President and also the other ministers who were present.He said:There is no doubt that there has been a quantum shift so far as the assertion of control both in relation to the military by the Government and also the central control of the military in relation to its activities in East Timor. . . . I am certainly satisfied from what's happened publicly, from the presence yesterday of General Wiranto, his participation in the discussions and the general attitude taken by Dr Habibie . . . there is a realisation that things had to change, that things have begun to change.A journalist inquired of him:Prime Minister, how can you maintain the confidence given that even with General Wiranto's presence at a peace ceremony in the territory itself still the atrocities continue and there hasn't been a disarming of the militia?The Prime Minister replied:. . . the confidence I expressed was a confidence that things were infinitely better than they were a week or two weeks ago.That very same day the Minister for Foreign Affairs sang from the same Panglossian hymn sheet when he said:There isn't any doubt that the Indonesians through the process are committed to the laying down of arms, endeavouring to achieve disarmament, using the Peace and Stability Commission which they established on 21 April to assist with that process but also to do so in consultation with the United Nations. I can say that much, and obviously we are delighted to get that commitment from the Indonesians. . . . . . . . . .I think people will feel more confident with the police playing a much more substantial role on the ground rather than the armed forces.These were, of course, the very same police who helped oversee the massacre at Liquica. I think it is fair to say that, with these declarations made just three weeks after that Liquica horror, the die was cast. With them, the Australian government embraced the plan to see the ballot through, come what may, and without any real protection for the East Timorese people themselves. Behind the scenes, Australian intelligence assessments were quietly revised to remove any conflict with the government's acceptance of Jakarta's assurances.There can be no doubt that the people of East Timor have been grievously betrayed by both the United Nations and Australia. Despite all the mounting evidence, we pressed on without any real attempt to guarantee security. Despite all the repeated promises, there was no process of disarmament. Militia gangs made a show of handing in a few weapons. But the UN promptly and kindly returned them to the militia headquarters for safekeeping and for occasional inspection. In place of real disarmament, we funded a massive public education program to convince the East Timorese that they could cast their vote and do so free of violence, free of intimidation and free of retribution.I have here examples of the leaflets that were distributed on the streets of Dili and across the countryside of East Timor and posted on the sides of building after building when we were there. They were put there to persuade the East Timorese to come forward to register to vote and to convince them that they would not be betrayed in the days and weeks following the ballot. This one reads:No matter what the outcome on August 30th, UNAMET will NOT leave after the consultationUNAMET is here to . . . Conduct the popular consultationTransport the ballot papersCount all the votes togetherRemain in East Timor after the vote That is what the UN pledged to do. Another one, translated, says:UNAMET will stay after the vote. You can be confident.Another one, perhaps the cruellest of all, has the dove of peace and the slogan:Peace is the prize.That is what we said was at stake. That is what we put to the East Timorese people. Australia contributed $10 million towards the conduct of this ballot and the publication of literature such as this. Oh, yes—and weren't we successful beyond our wildest expectations? Nearly 450,000 people registered to vote, 98.6 per cent turned out on the day and, despite all the threats, all the violence and all the intimidation, 78.5 per cent voted for their freedom. This was truly the triumph of an oppressed people's courage.But within hours of that ballot the militia were back on the streets and the killing began. Instead of celebrating freedom, the East Timorese have been cut down and their country has been laid to waste—the horror of Liquica, that harbinger of doom, repeated on a vastly greater scale. All the grim warnings—warnings so often dismissed—have proved terrifyingly correct.I wish to conclude with a couple of points. The first relates to our debt to the East Timorese. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister about the exploits of the Australians in 1942. He spoke for a long while about the Australians and for a much shorter time, I regret, about the East Timorese who were involved in that endeavour. While we were there as part of the delegation together with our Senate colleagues, I went with Tim Fischer and looked at the plaque erected by the Australian commandoes in the hills behind Dili which pays a grateful tribute to the brave East Timorese who gave their lives in support of our troops in 1942. The East Timorese paid a terrible price. When our troops departed, we left many of our East Timorese friends on the beach. We left them to an awful fate at the hands of the Japanese.The RAAF dropped leaflets saying, `We thank you. We will always remember you.' But, in truth, we did not. Today's debate deals with a people we owe, a people we owe deeply, a people we betrayed in 1942 and betrayed a second time in 1975 when we failed to speak up, and betrayed a third time in 1978 when we extended de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor—and a people we betrayed again in 1999 when we helped drive a fatally flawed process which has left their country in absolute ruins.We as a nation have a responsibility to give the East Timorese our most generous support. Sending our troops, as we have, to lead this peacekeeping mission is the first vital step. We must also be prepared to provide them with humanitarian support on a massive scale, and indeed to commence the enormous task of reconstruction. I welcome today's announcement of $4 million from Minister Downer, but that is only the very beginning of what is going to need to be a tremendous commitment. It is vitally important that Australia play a key role in all of these areas, and particularly in institution-building for a free East Timor, that new independent nation that is being formed on Australia's very doorstep.I say at this very beginning that we should be ending our de jure recognition of Indonesian sovereignty. This may seem like a formality but it is not. We should not wait for the Indonesian MPR to implement the ballot results. Indonesia's claim of sovereignty has no legitimacy whatsoever. Australia should do the right thing and end de jure recognition, and we should do so now. We must also be prepared to recognise a provisional East Timorese government, headed, one anticipates, by Xanana Gusmao, as soon as it is formed.At the same time it is tremendously important that Australia make a clear distinction between the Indonesian people and the Indonesian military and their militias who have been responsible for this horrific violence. The criminals who directed the appalling events in East Timor must be held fully accountable for their actions, but all Australians have a responsibility to ensure that this condemnation does not extend to the Indonesian people, whose own democratic aspira tions are now in some jeopardy. The tragedy in East Timor will indeed be the much greater if the present crisis sets back Indonesia's emergent democracy. Australia must do the right thing by East Timor, but we must also support Indonesia's democracy. There is a responsibility for everyone in public office to ensure that anti-Indonesian outbursts have no place in our nation's response to the East Timorese crisis. We must do everything and make every effort to avoid any spiral of nationalistic rhetoric that can only damage democratic hopes and produce an enduring estrangement between our two countries.One is always tempted to imagine what might have been. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs boasted that peacekeepers have been dispatched to East Timor in world record time. But imagine what things might have been like if Australia and the world community had done the work and been ready before the holocaust commenced. Imagine what might have been if Australia had properly heeded the dreadful warnings of Liquica. Imagine what might have been if the peacekeepers we sent in so proudly yesterday had departed either before or immediately after the ballot was declared 18 long days ago. Had we fulfilled our responsibilities, we could have helped prevent East Timor's triumph from being turned to tragedy. We could have helped prevent the assassination of so many East Timorese leaders. We could have helped prevent the torching of the towns and the villages. In reality, we could have saved so many lives and prevented so much horror. We will never know what might have been, but surely the East Timorese deserve so much better. It is our shame, and it is East Timor's tragedy, that we did not do so.16:40:0010055Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPDefence10—Yesterday morning Australia began the largest deployment of military personnel overseas in a generation. The motion before the House today is therefore a timely expression of the support and concern which our forces deserve to take with them.In the last two months Australia has faced the most significant strategic challenge for 30 years. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, Australia has met that challenge. Since becoming Minister for Defence a year ago, one of my consistent concerns has been the increased uncertainty surrounding our strategic environment. The events in East Timor this year have clearly demonstrated how fluid that strategic environment has become.Once the government of Indonesia determined a course leading to the act of consultation in East Timor on 30 August, the Australian government decided, in our national interest, to support it. It is a matter of concern shared by all Australians that the clear results of that act of consultation by the people of East Timor were not able to be given effect peacefully in accordance with the agreement reached between the United Nations, Indonesia and Portugal on 5 May 1999. As a consequence, and at the request of the United Nations, the government of Australia has decided to commit troops to East Timor. As the Prime Minister stated, the deployment of Australian troops to East Timor meets the test of Australia's international interest. We have a vital strategic interest in promoting peace and stability in East Timor. Without that peace and stability, we cannot be confident of our own security. So, although there is an urgent humanitarian task in East Timor, our leadership of the international task force, INTERFET, is not only about being a good international citizen but equally about promoting regional peace and security and Australia's national interest.Our objective is to ensure that the United Nations process in East Timor moves back on track so that the will of the East Timorese people—as reflected in the vote of 30 August—is implemented as quickly as possible. Our work in East Timor also serves to fulfil the humanitarian expectations of both the international community and the Australian people. The Australian government's intention is for the multinational force to carry out its mandate and hand over to the United Nations transitional authority as soon as practicable.Our focus in the coming days and weeks will be on the specific mission the United Nations has given us. INTERFET's role in that process is determined by the United Nations Security Council and will be, firstly, to prevent the recurrence of violence on the scale we saw over the past two weeks; secondly, to protect and support UNAMET and any other UN entities in their work of building a political reconciliation; and, thirdly, to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid by protecting the agencies involved in that delivery.Full restoration of peace and security in East Timor will depend on a comprehensive political settlement of the differences between the various sections of East Timorese opinion on the future of the territory. That process of reconciliation will need to take as its starting point the clear judgment of the majority of East Timorese in favour of independence as expressed in the ballot. But it must also pay proper attention to the aspirations and views of the minority.Progress towards reconciliation will depend on the efforts of the United Nations but, ultimately, also on the people of East Timor themselves. This process will be slow and difficult. It may well take many years. We are working with the United Nations to start that work immediately. It is the government's hope that INTERFET will be replaced by a full United Nations peacekeeping operation as soon as possible, whenever that can be arranged by the United Nations in conjunction with the determination of the Indonesian government. We will do all we can in that time to provide a secure environment for the process of political reconciliation and humanitarian relief to go forward.Operation Stabilise commenced on 20 September at 7 a.m. when the first forces landed at Dili airport, with follow-on forces arriving in continuous C-130 sorties. As of this afternoon, over 2,300 INTERFET personnel are deployed in East Timor. Aircraft carrying the troops flew to Dili from Darwin, Townsville and Tindal, with troops also arriving by sea this morning. A further 500 troops will be arriving today by air using Australian, French, New Zealand and American aircraft. I am pleased to say that all preliminary movements and initial objectives were completed without difficulty. The build-up of forces so far has gone smoothly without incident. Further deployments of personnel, stores and equipment will continue throughout the week. Foreign contingents continue to arrive in Australia and will be deployed to Dili as part of the force build-up.The ADF continues to work closely with aid agencies to provide emergency humanitarian relief. Last week the RAAF conducted six food drops, delivering over 27 tonnes of food to displaced persons. Three more humanitarian air drops by Australian and international aircraft are planned for tomorrow. These are particularly demanding tasks for the ADF crews due to the high terrain and poor visibility caused by cloud and severe smoke haze.Although no country anticipated the extent of the destruction after the consultations, Australia did make prudent preparations. We decided in February this year to increase the training and operational readiness of a brigade size force in Darwin. We put the catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay into service and made the Defence Force ready to meet regional contingencies. As well as playing a leading role in building the coalition and providing the commander of INTERFET, Major General Peter Cosgrove, we are now contributing by far the largest force to INTERFET, initially about 2,000 and rapidly increasing to around 4,500 as INTERFET consolidates in East Timor.Australia's commitment includes the initial deployment of the following: land force elements comprising a brigade group of two infantry battalions with associated support elements, including engineers and armoured vehicles, logistic support elements and rotary wing support; air elements including C-130s, Caribous and 707s to provide transport of personnel and cargo and maintain supplies for the mission; and naval components including the frigates HMAS Anzac, HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Darwin, the heavy-lift ship HMAS Tobruk, the fast catamaran I mentioned before, HMAS Jervis Bay, the replenishment ship HMAS Success and two heavy landing craft. Following this initial contribution, the Australian force component is likely to build up further over time, as the requirements of the operation and the contributions from other countries become more clearly defined.No-one should underestimate the enormous challenge this operation represents. The government has an obligation to tell the Australian people that the situation in East Timor is dangerous. We must be prepared for the possibility that some peacekeepers will be injured or even killed. Our forces are well trained and well equipped and the United Nations Security Council resolution gives INTERFET the power it needs to protect our people and to perform its mission. But the dangers should not be underestimated. That is why I announced last week that military service with INTERFET will be treated as warlike service for pay and compensation purposes. The government has also acted to significantly increase the package of allowances compared with recent deployments. Given the peace enforcement nature of this mission, we could do nothing less for our military people.The creation of INTERFET is the first time Australia has been given the task to build and lead a multinational force on behalf of the United Nations. The speed with which the international coalition has been assembled and its widely representative nature is ample testament to the respect with which the international community holds Australia. At the present time Singapore, Italy, Thailand, the Philippines, France, Canada, the United States, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Brazil have all made firm commitments to support INTERFET. We fully expect that a number of other countries will make formal commitments to INTERFET in the coming days.A range of land, maritime and air force elements have been committed, including strategic airlift, helicopter and medical support ones. I am particularly pleased that so many of our regional neighbours who share our strategic interests have been prepared to contribute to the force. The involvement of Thailand—which has assumed the deputy commander's position of INTERFET—the Philippines, Singapore and Malaysia are very important expressions of the region's commitment to assist in East Timor.The value of our military alliance with the United States has also been confirmed. The alliance was a key ingredient in helping us to bring INTERFET together so quickly. Portugal has played an essential diplomatic role in the process and Japan's financial support is critical to ensure the participation of a number of states unable to manage the cost of the deployment of their forces. The Australian government is grateful to the leaders, officials and military personnel of all the countries that I have mentioned for the ready support they have given to the important work of the multinational force.Australia's contribution to INTERFET will place a heavy demand on the ADF in the long term. However, the government has ensured that the ADF retains the capability to respond to other contingencies as required. That is most important. Into the longer term I want to acknowledge that one result of the East Timor crisis is that we will need to review our strategic outlook and defence spending requirements. As I have previously announced, a defence white paper which will address our changing strategic environment will be released next year. Recent events in our region confirm even more so the need for a revised assessment of the strategic assessments underpinning our defence policy.Work is now beginning on this white paper. It will need to take some important issues into account. The first is that we have seen a significant deterioration in our strategic environment. We do not see Australia coming under direct threat. But it is clear that events in our region—just like the East Timor situation—can profoundly impact on our security interests. We do not have an option of simply ignoring these developments by saying that our defence interests begin at the coastline.Another issue the white paper must deal with is that we face many competing claims in the defence budget for new military capabilities. These include finding the appropriate way to replace combat aircraft and surface ships. And, as East Timor demonstrates, we also need a highly capable land force—one which is ready to operate at short notice and is highly mobile. Getting the right mix of these military capabilities is not always an easy task. The government has, since 1996, protected the defence budget from cuts. We now need to take a very serious look at our future needs for defence spending in the light of the difficult regional situation we currently face and of the impact this will have into the future.We also note suggestions that the government persuaded intelligence agencies to adjust or vary their assessments on East Timor in recent months. Let me just say that these suggestions are totally without foundation. It is in the nature of these things that there are a variety of views in any intelligence assessment and, needless to say, the situation remains very fluid and assessments can change on a daily basis.A stable and peaceful Indonesia is vitally important to our interests. We must be aware of the fact that, no matter what happens in the next year in East Timor, Indonesia will be our neighbour forever. Indonesia's size and population mean it will have a significant role in South-East Asian and Pacific regional affairs in the future. We need a relationship with Indonesia based on respect and realism. Rhetoric is no substitute for a clear knowledge of each other's interests. Our role must be to cooperate and to promote our common wish for stability.We recognise that the Indonesian government has done the right thing by conducting the act of consultation in East Timor and in agreeing to the peacekeeping force. The Australian government believes it important to maintain a balanced relationship with Indonesia. The defence relationship is currently under review and several activities have already been cancelled. But it should be understood that the defence relationship has already served Australia well through the current crisis. For example, good contacts with the Indonesian armed forces have helped in enabling our C-130s to evacuate UNAMET personnel from Dili.Secondly, as a matter of practicality, we need to keep good ties with the Indonesian military to help Australian and other peacekeepers with their difficult mission in East Timor. Indeed, I am grateful to the Indonesian government and to TNI and their armed forces in that area for the cooperative spirit they have brought to the initial stages of the INTERFET deployment. Major General Peter Cosgrove had a very constructive meeting with his counterpart in Dili on Sunday and the initial deployment has gone well as a consequence. There is still very much goodwill between Australia and Indonesia and we must work to promote our common interests in promoting regional peace and security. We will always be willing to talk to Indonesia and to cooperate where it is in our national interest to do so.The Australian Defence Force has not been at such a high point of military readiness since the end of the Vietnam War. It is a tribute to the professionalism of our forces that they are ready for this task so quickly. I say to the men and women of the defence forces that you and your families have the thanks of a nation for what you are doing. The government and the Australian community will support you and your families throughout this deployment and well after your return. The rules of engagement we have developed, the increases in allowances and the family support measures we have introduced and the thousands of messages of best wishes from the public are but some clear examples of that support. You are the pride of the nation. You take with you the appreciation and support not only of the Australian people but also of the East Timorese people and those of the region more widely for the role you have in promoting peace and stability in the region.Many other people also deserve the gratitude of this parliament for the work they have done to bring this operation together. I would like to thank my ministerial counterparts in all nations who have contributed to INTERFET. In particular, I am grateful to the ASEAN countries who have contributed, particularly Thailand, as well as the United Kingdom and the United States. The New Zealand contribution has also been very generous and in the true spirit of the Anzac tradition. I am personally very grateful for the outstanding cooperation I have received from the New Zealand defence minister, Mr Max Bradford. The government appreciates the commitment these nations and all other members of INTERFET have shown to regional security.I would also like to thank the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, and the Acting Secretary of Defence, Hugh White, and their team in the Department of Defence. Their tireless and continuing commitment has ensured that we have had the forces available to mount this operation as well as the success in establishing this truly multinational coalition.I have no doubt that the coming months for INTERFET will bring periods of difficulty. But the government has complete confidence in the force commander, Major General Peter Cosgrove, and the many highly capable military and civilian officials working on the task. In closing, let me reinforce my opening words. We have a vital strategic interest in promoting peace and stability in East Timor. A stable and peaceful Indonesia is equally important to our interests. Without that peace and stability, we cannot be confident of our own security.16:59:0010059Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I had the great pleasure of accompanying the Minister for Defence to both Townsville and Darwin in the last two days. We were part of the group led by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democrats to farewell and wish every success to those young men and women who have trained and set themselves for a most difficult task. I would like to thank the minister for making possible my participation in that group. I think I also speak for the member for the Northern Territory, who was given a similar opportunity in Darwin, and for the member for Herbert on the government side who participated in a visit both in his own electorate of Townsville and in Darwin. What it did was give all of us clear definition to that steely resolve of Australia's fighting men and women to serve their nation. It gave us a clear opportunity, as we mixed with them after formal speeches of congratulations and best wishes from the leaders of the three major political parties, to just get down and get dirty with them over dinner in the mess at Lavarack Barracks, to go and talk to them as they were preparing for the last photograph in Darwin as a group before getting on a plane or going down to the wharf to get on to the Jervis Bay and be whisked away to East Timor.The Prime Minister made some comment about an issue that was raised with him, in the true spirit of the wags that Australians generally are and that are in the Australian Defence Force, and the same happened to me. I remember as we were walking through the troop lines, talking to a few people—introducing myself, wishing them all the best, asking where they came from, how their families felt and so on—in true ADF tradition, one of the young blokes said to me, `Can you tell me where I am going to get some more bullets?' I felt that was a fair question and I said, `See that gentleman over there in the striped shirt? He is actually the minister, go and ask him.' Another one said to me, `Are you the bloke I talked to about allowances?' And once again I was able to say, `See that man in the striped shirt over there? He is the minister, you go and ask him.'I think that says something about the way in which the people had prepared themselves. They had been training to a very heightened level of readiness for the last three weeks and there was an expectation of Australian involvement. We have already had some comment on all the niceties and other scrabbling that went on behind the scenes in getting Australia's participation in this peace enforcement operation, and I will come back to one or two aspects of that. These people in Townsville and in Darwin were ready to go. They were sick of waiting. They were sick of people like the minister and me coming up and saying, `How are you? How do you feel?' They wanted to go. They wanted to serve their nation. They had been trained for this and they wanted to get over there.I also have to say that one of the most difficult tasks for me in the last two days was actually restraining the Leader of the Opposition. He wanted to get on the Jervis Bay at all costs and go over to East Timor, but we needed him back there. His commitment to defence is legendary. Both the minister and I commented on our way back that the task of bringing the Leader of the Opposition back to Canberra was quite monumental.There is one thing I want to say about this commitment of the Australian troops and the focus that has occurred through the media and others on them: we know they are going into difficult circumstances and we know that expectations have been built up through the imagery that has come through our television sets of a night where we have seen people being butchered, being murdered, and the mayhem that was going on there; yet, as the minister and the chief of the military have reported, our troops were able to land, to secure and to re-establish UNAMET through the operation of the deployment that occurred in the last 24 hours or so with not a shot being fired in anger. I have to say this in a somewhat perverse way: I hope this does not diminish the views of Australians about that operation.I hope it does not diminish the focus that Australia has on our young men and women that, in defending East Timorese lives over in East Timor now and trying to secure that nation so that it can become a truly independent nation in our own region, I hope what it does not do is to take away the view that these diggers are there for the long haul. We do not know how long, but they are there for a long time and they need our support. My plea is: do not forget the diggers. It has gone well so far but, if it turns nasty, if insurgents come across from West Timor and they start to take out a few Australians—as we have already indicated may be a possibility—we must always remember that over there is someone's daughter or son, people who are there serving their nation. We cannot forget the job that they are doing.I just make that plea through the parliament this afternoon as we are debating this very important motion moved by the Prime Minister. It is all well and good in the initial euphoria of Australia's being involved in the biggest operation since Vietnam in terms of sending Australian troops to foreign shores only to have it all dissipate in a couple of days time. I say that with some degree of knowledge because I happened to be in the United States for about 10 days recently when a lot of this was happening. It was interesting to get the United States perspective, and I will say a bit about that in a moment. While I was there CNN actually carried news of East Timor as its first story for a couple of days but, as the days went on and Hurricane Floyd started to build up and looked like it might shut down Disney World, East Timor disappeared off CNN's radar. I think Australia owes more to our serving men and women than to allow that to happen.At the outset I want to pay tribute to those serving men and women of the Australian Defence Force whom the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others have referred to because they will do us proud there. They are ready, they are trained, they have got steely determination, they know what their job is and they will do it well.I would also like to acknowledge the excellent leadership being given not only to the Australian troops but also to the whole force in East Timor by Major General Peter Cosgrove, the Commander of INTERFET. I had the opportunity to speak again with Peter yesterday in Darwin, as did the minister and the Leader of the Opposition. He is an imposing figure and a fine leader. We could not have chosen anybody better to lead this particular commitment that Australia and other international countries have made to the INTERFET operation. He is somebody whom the troops will follow. The relationship and the rapport that I saw yesterday with the deputy commander from Thailand is going to stand us in good stead.We have already heard the minister's comments that there are a number of countries that have given commitment to this. We have received firm commitments from 11 countries to this particular action. The Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States, Singapore, Thailand, New Zealand, Italy, France, Canada, Malaysia and Brazil have given firm commitments. Nine other countries—Fiji, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Mozambique, Spain, Ireland, Norway and Denmark—have indicated a willingness to contribute in some way, but it is still to be agreed as to how. Other countries are still considering how they might make a contribution.It is important that we understand that the INTERFET action is one of the largest commitments that an Australian defence force could make. We have already heard that initially 2,000 troops will be deployed and there is potential for a further 2,500 to be deployed. That represents nearly 10 per cent of the entire serving Australian Defence Force. That is an incredible commitment. When you take into consideration the involvement of the Air Force and the Navy—whether it be the frigates that are standing offshore, whether it be the aircraft that have been delivering troops or whether it be the aircraft that will deliver the much needed stores and supplies to maintain our serving men and women in East Timor—this is a gigantic exercise by anybody's expectations. It is something that we have not seen for some time. There are a few questions I want to raise with the ministers present and, because this debate has been brought on by the government to give us an opportunity to discuss issues associated with the deployment to East Timor, this is an appropriate time to raise them.We do not have a time frame as to what Australia's involvement is likely to be. I raise this for a simple reason: we have been talking about peacekeeping, but what we will in fact be doing is peace enforcing or peace establishing. Once that peace has been established, our intention is to prepare the ground for a United Nations force to be involved as peacekeepers, leading to the circumstances where an independent state of East Timor can be created. There are some concerns about how long it will take and the contribution that Australia will be expected to make. One should compare this with Bougainville. How long has Australia been involved in Bougainville? How long has the Papua New Guinea government been talking about a likely outcome? The United Nations is similarly involved in that. We simply cannot leave this as an open-ended question because it raises concerns about the sustainability of deployment of Australian troops and the sustainability of deployment of our allies in this exercise.It is all well and good to talk about the commitment the Thais have made by providing the deputy commander, and the commitments that Singaporeans and others have made but, over time, it is going to take people on the ground to maintain the peace enforcement role that our Defence Force has the leadership role in, and that costs money.I am disturbed to hear the Treasurer of this country say, `Yes, of course we will have to increase funding for the Australian Defence Force,' and, `Yes, we will have to put more money into this particular exercise, but we will not in any way upset the domestic surplus. We will have to make cuts somewhere.' The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised this issue this afternoon in his contribution. Where are those cuts going to fall? Where are the funds coming from for the Australian Defence Force if we continue this deployment role over a period of time?In the not too distant future, the defence minister must also make some fairly strong statements about issues associated with the deployment. Specifically I am referring to rotation. If our troops are expected to be there for an extended period of time, consideration has to be given to the effect that that has on their families here in Australia. The effect that it has on a range of factors associated with deployment and rotation has to be given some consideration. How do we do that if we have 4,500 of our troops committed to East Timor over time? How do we rotate them through? This concern was expressed last week.I am sure the minister knows about this—I hope he does anyway—but we need to look at the role of the reserves and how we might make rotation work. The minister must immediately look into ways in which the Australian reserve forces can be activated and inserted into this process if we have a long-term commitment. There are some problems there because, by law, the reserves cannot be deployed like our full-time soldiers. If they volunteer, it is a possibility, but then there would be concerns about their work commitments back in Australia—they are part of the Defence Force but they are not full-time soldiers.This government has changed the Workplace Relations Act. We brought to the Minister for Defence's attention that taking time off work to go into the reserves is no longer an allowable matter, so we have some genuine concerns about rotation of our serving men and women if that deployment lasts for a long period of time. Falling from that are our concerns about the role of our reservists and our reserve force.We have always been supportive of the concept of the Ready Reserve scheme. We would like to think that this government might consider that again. We have not seen it yet, but the Prime Minister has promised a review and report on the operation of the reserves. Maybe this is the time to speed it up. If he is taking credit for speeding up the deployment of Australian troops and international troops in this peace enforcement mission in East Timor, perhaps it is time he sped this up as well.I have some concerns about Indonesian relations with Australia and the United States' relations with Australia and Indonesia because a lot of this is intertwined. Personally, I am quite saddened that Australian-Indonesian relations have reached this nadir. The suspension of our military links with TNI was an important signal that we needed to send, and I am pleased that the government decided to do that, but I am not sure what action is being proposed to take that a step further.It is all well and good for people to say that TNI might be exercising the appropriate cooperativeness in East Timor itself, but the simple fact is that much of what is happening in Indonesia—and when it comes to the TNI's relationship—is embroiled in domestic politics. We know that when the Indonesian parliament finally meets to determine the fate of East Timor on their own vote, a sizeable proportion of that vote will be from the military. We also know that General Wiranto, who is presently the defence minister, is perceived by some as being a leading contender for a position in the incoming government, whether it be as President or Deputy President in some coalition—who knows? The domestic political circumstances of Indonesia are very important in this relationship at the moment, and I think we must always be aware of that. It is similar in terms of the United States, and this goes to the question of the leadership role that Australia has played in this.It is interesting that some of the comments that have been flowing around seem to indicate that we were competing with others for the leadership role here. We were never going to be a competitor with anybody else. No-one else wanted the leadership role in this—certainly none of the Asian countries wanted the leadership role in this. They had a relationship with Indonesia which they did not want to spoil. It is only since the United Nations finally resolved that this force should be in East Timor that some of the ASEAN nations, and others more broadly in the Asian region, have been prepared to commit. Of course that commitment has been of varying degrees, size and so on. As welcome as it is, never lose sight of the fact that this was always going to be a constraint that had to be overcome.A lot of the Australia-US relationship is embroiled in domestic politics as well. I can tell you, from my visit over there, that if the Republican-controlled Congress says one thing, the Democrat White House will say something else. So if President Clinton said, `Yes, it is time to get involved in a big way in East Timor', you can bet your bottom dollar that most of the conservative Congress was going to go the other way. And the further east you go in the United States the less is their knowledge of the Asia-Pacific region and specifically East Timor. Whilst it is true that they were concerned about humanitarian issues, they were equally concerned about the relationship between the United States and Indonesia. And that is why I believe this government, through the foreign minister in particular, should have been putting more pressure on the United States and on the Prime Minister to lean on Indonesia to withdraw the troops from East Timor and to make the process much more stable and transparent in the lead-up to, during and after the ballot for independence. I do not know that that necessarily happened. I have more than my suspicions; in fact, I know it did not happen, and I think that is a failing of our diplomacy.The United States is still the only world power, and if the United States says to Indonesia—or anybody else—`we would like you to do this, that and the other', it is a pretty good bet that they will do it. So I think there was a failure in diplomacy in that respect.In conclusion, the future of East Timor has to be a concern to Australia. What we are creating is a new country. A tremendous amount of aid from Australia is going to be needed when complete independence is voted on through the Indonesian parliament—or, as my colleague the shadow minister for foreign affairs said, let's do it now anyway and eliminate the de jure recognition of East Timor as a province of Indonesia. It is going to take a tremendous amount of resources to build East Timor as a new country, and they will come from Australia. We have to be aware of that. We have to be concerned about the fact that our Australian troops over there are going to support that. We send them every best wish and we look forward to their speedy and safe return. We know, through this parliament, that they are absolutely, totally, 100 per cent supported. (Time expired)17:19:0010063Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I would like to first make it very clear that I support the motion proposed by the Prime Minister. My comments will be supportive of our forces and of the policies that the government has pursued. I will outline in greater detail our humanitarian response as a government.I say that very deliberately because over the last few weeks all Australians have watched with a great deal of horror the events that have unfolded in East Timor. Who could not have been influenced by the images that we have seen in our living rooms, the countless tragic images of people who have been so disastrously affected by what has occurred? For instance, who could ever forget the image of a man running for his life in broad daylight, who tripped and fell to the ground and lost his life to a machete-wielding gang of people following? Who could forget the infra-red pictures of a particular group of men, women and children moving under cover of night, fleeing to a place of safety—each of them knowing that each step could betray their presence and cost them their life? One man courageously and defiantly gave a victory signal for the camera.Today, the pictures of war and the brutality that some human beings inflict upon others can be beamed into our homes, in colour, and it has a profound impact on public life and the responses that occur. Of course, when people see those sorts of images, they do ask questions. They ask what solutions there are. There are people who, in the immediacy of what they have seen, say, `Send in the troops!' It really does not matter whether you are ready. They say, `Send them in, whatever the consequences.' Others, as they become aware of people starving, say that there have to be air drops immediately. It does not matter whether the material gets to people. Then you have those who advocate cutting absolutely every tie—political, diplomatic—with our nearest neighbours in order to force their hand.There has to be a sense of reality in the way these issues are addressed. It is important to keep a sense of proportion. What I think has happened over the last few weeks as those views have been put—and they have been put and strongly felt within the Australian community—is that people have recognised that the way in which the government was responding was the most appropriate. Today we have heard a number of speeches which one could be forgiven for believing were abstracted from the last lot of newspaper articles written on this subject. Very often they were not the considered views of the person giving the speech. Rather, they picked up the trends that are thought to be being outlined in the media.I do not believe that, in an area like this, policy is appropriately implemented from following. It is a question of leading. This government has been able to lead in relation to each of these matters. There is nothing novel about believing that it would have been desirable to have peacekeeping forces in there right from the beginning. Some would have you believe that the government had not thought about it. But the fact is that, before the conduct of the ballot, our Prime Minister was raising this issue with the Indonesian Prime Minister. It was made every clear to the Prime Minister that Indonesia would not accept foreign forces at that time. In the end, we made a commitment of a party of Australian police in concert with others, and we very much respect their bravery and what they did in East Timor while the ballot was being conducted. As an outcome, that was something that we were able to win.The fact is that, without international and Indonesian support, peacekeeping forces were never an option unless you were seriously arguing that we should go in unilaterally and declare war on our nearest neighbour which has a very substantial population over and above ours and where we would not have any of the advantages that we have in terms of military equipment and hardware for the purposes of defending our nation. We would have been asking our troops to engage a force probably five times larger than Australia could muster and to do it without international support. I think the reality of that position became very clear to the Australian people as those arguments were put—and it was appropriate that they should be put.Those who want to argue that we should jeopardise our long-term relationship with Indonesia ignore the reality that this country is still our closest neighbour. I heard the shadow foreign minister arguing that we should distinguish the people from the military and the government, but the fact is that it is still vital to Australia's interests that we have a stable and prosperous Indonesia within our region. Clearly, our relationships have been strained by what has happened. That troubles me and it troubles my colleagues. When we come out of this situation in which Australia is playing a leading role we need to be able to build positively in the future to try to re-establish those relations.The reality is that there was never going to be a quick fix. It needed somebody who was prepared to undertake the hard yards. I feel very proud—as I know the Australian community feel—of the way in which the Prime Minister of this country has, in our interests, handled himself in conducting this matter. It was through the course of action that he took that we were able to bring together the international support necessary for the involvement of the peacekeeping force. It was our Prime Minister's sheer will and determination, his unrelenting effort and his hard work that not only brought international attention but also galvanised a global response. This resolution, which we are all supporting—a resolution which I think people see with great pride—of Australia's contribution would not have been determined without the efforts of our Prime Minister and his colleagues. I want to pay tribute to them because I believe that they have brought great credit and distinction to this nation. They are the sorts of remarks that ought to be made by every speaker in relation to this motion. That is the message of unity and commitment that the Australian people want to hear, and it is the message that we have had from the Australian people.In the time available I also want to indicate the way in which we have responded to other challenges. There were other challenges associated with this tragedy, and they are continuing challenges. I want to first say how proud I am of my department—the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—and the officers who put their own lives at risk. They were there in East Timor with others from areas like the police at the time when we sought to evacuate some 350 locally engaged UNAMET staff from the UN compound in Dili. That group was there to visa the 350 people who entered Australia on 6 and 7 September. Of course, we have also had other officials who have since been involved in the evacuation of some 1,500 people who were in the UNAMET compound and were brought to Darwin on 14 September. Quite frankly, their lives would have been at risk because of their association with the UN's efforts.I am pleased that we had in place legislation that enabled us to provide over and above all of the support and assistance we give to refugees and humanitarian entrants, and that program has continued unaffected. We have been able to play a significant role in relation to the tragedy in Kosovo: we provided a temporary safe haven for some 4,000 people for a period until it was possible for them to return.Having put in place those legislative measures, we are in a position to quickly react to the situation in East Timor and to evacuate people under the safe haven arrangements. It is perhaps unknown to members, but a week and a half ago I was able to implement changes to regulations that would ensure that we were in a position to issue the visas on shore in Australia. I am grateful for the late meeting with the Governor-General to enable the early implementation of that regulation, which ensured that we could implement the safe haven arrangements so that people were removed from a hostile and dangerous environment in the shortest possible time. I thank all of those people who were involved in that.My department has also been able to assist in the safe arrival of others, including high profile East Timorese, such as Bishop Carlos Belo. My department has sent about 35 staff to Darwin to establish and operate a special processing centre for the evacuees. Immigration clearances were able to be quickly obtained and people have been undergoing health and quarantine checking. The processing occurred in an exceptionally short period. It started at 10.15 a.m. on Tuesday, 14 September, and was finished by 9.15 p.m. that night. All of them were able to be settled in their accommodation by midnight. It was a very impressive feat. I think we ought to be very proud of the professionalism of the officers who work for us in relation to these matters. I make that point because we ask a great deal of them. The implementation of these measures, well outside their normal remit, has been something that people have been doing because of their willingness, dedication and professionalism.At the moment, we are making arrangements to accommodate East Timorese in longer term accommodation—the accommodation evacuated by the Kosovars. The current situation is that 800 Timorese were transported to the Puckapunyal safe haven on the weekend, 400 should arrive at Leeuwin in Western Australia by the end of this week, and the remainder will be accommodated at East Hills in Sydney.We have in place arrangements that will be non-discriminatory. They will be the same as those we put in place for the European displaced people. The accommodation is the same; the food will be culturally appropriate; they will receive torture and trauma counselling; they will be given suitable clothing for our climate; they will have access to medical, dental and nursing facilities; children will receive basic education; adults will receive an allowance of $27 and children will receive $10 for personal items; they will have access to phone cards; they will be given English language classes; there will be translators to assist them; and there will be appropriate religious services.We are working closely with the East Timorese community to ensure that they are accommodated comfortably and near people who can work with them. Signage will be appropriate for their reading needs. People are free to come and go. I made the point the other day that we will not be providing support outside the havens—that is not really possible—but nobody is locked away in that sense and, of course, if it is necessary to extend the visas, we will. Work rights, if required, will be available on the same basis as they were for the Kosovars. We are not intending a permanent outcome. The objective of putting Australian troops in as part of the international force is to ensure that, ultimately, all East Timorese can return to a country which will be their own, hopefully as the plebiscite outcome is implemented, and that they can live there in safety and dignity. That is the objective.How would I describe the response that we have undertaken? I think it has to be seen as appropriate, generous and obviously sympathetic. There may well be other claims that people need to come to Australia. A moment ago I saw a friend who has been a friend to many around this building. This friend, who has spent time in East Timor and was there recently for the elections, said to me, `There are people I have worked with, people who have been working with those in the international community, who may well be a target of the paramilitaries.' If there is a way in which they can be brought to our notice and where a view can be established that they are at risk, we will obviously continue to respond. I will not be putting into the public arena, because of privacy reasons, all of the occasions on which we have helped. We have helped on a number of occasions already, and we will continue to assist. It is important for people to recognise—there are many claims now coming forward and some of them will obviously eventually exhibit family reunion characteristics that we often seen in situations like this—that we will be liaising closing with the UNHCR. We will be looking for their judgment, assistance and guidance to establish what the priorities should be and to ensure that not only Australia is involved, as I say, appropriately and generously but also the international community assists in relation to this effort.There have been many brave people involved in assisting in this matter, particularly the young men and women from the Department of Defence who are in East Timor now and the Australian Federal Police. I would like to mention one of my departmental officers particularly, and that is the Chief Migration Officer from Jakarta, Jose Alvarez, who flew to Dili as part of the nine member support team led by Ambassador McCarthy. Jose worked in Dili for two weeks under extraordinarily difficult and chaotic conditions to prepare for the UNAMET staff evacuation.I conclude my remarks by dealing with the East Timorese who are currently in Australia. We do have a number in Australia. I do not intend to canvass the issues relating to the litigation that has been in place to try to establish, for reasons of principle, the proper basis upon which people ought to avail themselves of any other effective protection that is available to them. The need to protect refugee places is one that ought to be a serious issue for the government and the opposition. I assume that was the reason these people took the position originally in relation to this litigation which we have pursued.Regardless of that issue and how it might be resolved, either through the litigation framework or otherwise, it is important for people to know that I have no intention of removing East Timorese currently in Australia. Any situation in which I am involved can only be finally resolved when people are in a position to return to a place where they can live in safety and dignity. I thought that the UN representative who has commented on the overwhelming vote for independence and who said, `The great dove of freedom has today spread its grand wings over the people of East Timor, and nothing can ever take them away,' had a great deal to say for us all in putting that very positive message. I hope that this motion and the support of the Australian community and the support of our young men and women in our Defence Force will help in resolving this matter in the best interests of the people of East Timor. (Time expired)17:39:0010066Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—As a person who has had a long-term interest in this matter and has been critical of governments of both political stripes in their handling of it, I feel a degree of resentment at the extent to which the Prime Minister has today attempted, essentially, to claim total credit for events that have been forced upon this country and this government by the turn of realities in Indonesia. In his contribution he said that governments of both stripes had reluctantly acquiesced to Indonesian occupation of Timor. He said that we should not apportion blame and so on, but he did claim that his government was responsible for significant change. One would have thought, from the tone of that contribution, that it was willingly so. In contrast, when we look through Hansard at the question times of this parliament, particularly from May onwards, we see the daily attacks upon the shadow minister for foreign affairs for raising issues that today this country has to deal with. I will cite one example. If I had more time I would quote quite a few. I quote from the Hansard of 11 May:. . . there is a line that should be drawn at party politics, and on this issue the opposition has overstepped that line . . . The fact is that the member for Kingsford-Smith . . . has demonstrated to members on both sides of this House that if you play the political game like that, including with Indonesia, you play yourself out of the game. You have no influence, no efficacy and no capacity to try to get a successful outcome for the people of East Timor.Similar comments have been repeated time and again in the period leading up to the crisis we face today. The East Timor Human Rights Centre has been producing publications for years on contemporary events in East Timor. I can cite reports that were produced at the time such comments were made day after day. On that very day, 11 May, when it was claimed that the opposition had overstepped the mark by trying to press the government further, a report stated:Dozens of militiamen wearing ribbons the colours of Indonesia's flag, went from house to house near Dili's old market, smashing everything they could get their hands on and attacking anyone too slow to run for their lives. When the killers hit the Dosreis house they shot dead 19-year-old Jose Ximenes, a visiting friend of the family. Elizaer Dosreis, a student aged 18, bravely recovered the body of a dead neighbour, Flavito Ribeiro, 24. But as he was about to drive off in a car, militiamen blocked the way, dragged him out and shot him at point-blank range through the head.That event occurred on the same day as the Minister for Foreign Affairs was telling this country and this parliament that the opposition was being too melodramatic and aggressive in what we should do.Before turning to defence personnel matters, I remind the House of the comments, as far back as 17 February 1999, by the Prime Minister of this country when giving his analysis of what should occur in Timor. In that contribution he built up a few sandcastles, a few straw men, and said, `I don't believe in immediate independence.' Very few people actually did. But after building up that false opposition he said:I don't want to stop the people of East Timor having independence but I do have a preference for a period of autonomy, a lengthy period of autonomy if possible, because I think that would be better all round. It would be better for the people of East Timor, it would be better for the whole of Indonesia and it would be better for Australia.The Prime Minister went on to say:The world is littered with cases of situations where independence has just happened too quickly and the disintegration and suffering that has followed . . . Furthermore, he noted:It would be preferable if there were not a precipitated grant of independence. This is a view I put to the Indonesian Minister, Mr Sasono who I saw yesterday . . . When we rewrite history we can go back to February and show that the degree to which Indonesia had America misled had its core in the attitudes of the Prime Minister and this government. Despite their claims now that they have been world leaders in basically moving this issue forward and that the world respects them, the reality is that the events in Indonesia, with the collapse of the country through economic problems and the move towards democracy, have forced a change in this government's policy. It has not been of the government's making. It has not been a deliberate step by this government. It has been forced upon it by events.It is clearly both appropriate and necessary that Australia makes a substantial contribution to both the current international force to East Timor—INTERFET—and any subsequent United Nations peacekeeping mission. In saying this, we must also acknowledge the impact that these missions will have on the Australian Defence Force and on serving personnel and their families.The impact on the ADF, particularly on the Army, can be readily appreciated by reference to some basic statistics. Under the government's Defence Reform Program, the target size of the Army is 23,000 full-time soldiers and 27,000 reservists. Out of this total force will come most of the 4,500 personnel that cabinet has authorised as the Australian contribution. If only full-time personnel are going to Timor, we are talking about one-fifth of the Army being deployed there at any one time. Those sent in the initial contingent will obviously be our best trained and most combat ready soldiers. It is a military truism that individual units cannot be deployed indefinitely. Personnel need to be rotated and that rotation has a flow-on effect on the rest of the full-time force and on the reserves.There has been a bit of a debate here today between the foreign minister and the Prime Minister. In the Australian Financial Review Net Services, under the headline `Australian-led Timor role over by Christmas: Downer' we have his prediction that they will all be back by Christmas and that there will be no need to replace these people. The Prime Minister has a more sombre analysis. He talks of a `long and protracted' Australian presence. With the government's ability to give these people relief and time back in this country, we had better hope that the seemingly more optimistic analysis of the foreign minister proves correct.It may well be the case that only the reserves contain sufficient numbers of some specialist personnel, including medical personnel, to sustain an extended deployment. Therefore, we must face up to the possibility that sections of the Army Reserves might need to be mobilised at some later point. I readily acknowledge that the government acted sensibly earlier in the year in putting a second Army brigade on a heightened state of readiness. If this had not happened, we would be in an even more difficult position.On the other hand, I confess I am worried about the state of the Army Reserve. In all my discussions with defence personnel and lobby groups, it is clear that they are also extremely concerned about the state of the reserves. If we are to adequately prepare for ongoing Australian participation in various peacekeeping missions, including East Timor, this is a challenge that we as a parliament and a community must face up to. I was very concerned yesterday when I received official figures from the government about the current recruitment and retention position of the Army Reserve. These figures show that last financial year the Army met only 51 per cent of its reserves recruitment target. In fact, it fell short by almost 2,200 positions. During the same period, the Army Reserve lost almost 3,400 existing personnel due to resignations or transfers to the inactive list. With the target size of the Army Reserve being 27,000 positions, departure rates and recruitment shortfalls of this magnitude are a serious concern.We are not very comforted in September by the comments of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs on 17 January this year when he assured the Australian people—and before he released the figures in the last week—that all was hunky-dory, boasting that 80 to 94 per cent of people who undertook courses completed them. Quite fundamentally, that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the number of personnel you have. Certainly, if you reduce the number of people going through the system and change the training process, and do not get the numbers you want, then you might be able to claim that more people successfully pass through the recruitment requirements. In January we were all assured that we have no problems; today we see, in stark contrast, the reality of those figures.Whilst this is not the appropriate occasion to have a full-scale party political debate about policies for the reserves, we cannot walk away from the challenge that exists in rebuilding the Army Reserves. For some time, the opposition has been flagging our concerns about the matter. Among other things, these concerns include the impact of the removal of defence leave as an allowable award condition under the Workplace Relations Act. As we have indicated, the concerns that we have expressed are also the concerns of the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party, which the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in this House dismisses with `So what?'The abolition of the Ready Reserve is another matter of concern, as are the introduction of common induction training, which makes it even harder for people to enlist and hold down a full-time job, and the need for the civilian employment protection legislation to be put in place to protect reservists who are mobilised for peacekeeping or related service. It is a pity that we still need to be debating these issues today. The government has received plenty of warning over the past year that a package of measures to assist the reserves is urgently needed. Former Minister Killen from the minister's home state of Queensland has been one of those who has indicated the problems to the minister. He knows from his own efforts the degree to which people voluntarily give up their time to encourage people into the reserves and how employers devote their efforts to try to increase interest in the general public. He knows from those people that the state of the reserves at the moment is a national disgrace.The government has received advice to this effect from the military command, from its own Defence Reserves Support Committee, from the Defence Reserves Association, from the Australian Defence Association and even from the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party. Earlier in the year, the government flagged that it was giving the matter priority consideration and that the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Barrie, would finalise a comprehensive strategy by the end of June. For whatever reasons, this never happened. It is not the first time that this government has failed to really deal with this issue.In January 1996, the Janz corporation undertook a survey of employers and their attitudes. In March 1996, the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, who stayed in that office until October 1998, was given material and throughout that very long period of 2½ years essentially nothing happened. The minister opposite is quite used to this performance by his predecessor. As we well know, in the last few weeks he has had to announce a final resolution to the way in which to handle the end of war list in Vietnam. He has had to launch an inquiry into a vast array of anomalies after the Second World War. As he knows very well, they are all matters that his predecessor put on the backburner and failed to act upon.While we are talking about performance, concerning the inquiry by Admiral Barrie, there was to be a policy paper—a solution, an outcome—by June 1999. It has not happened to date and the latest pronouncement by the current minister is that a discussion paper with various options will come out. So essentially the situation is that, dragging on from a promise that we have a finalisation, a degree of outcome by June, we did not get that deadline met and now we are told that what will come out is a variety of options which can drag on until the hereafter.We are now told that a paper might come out next month but that it will be only a discussion paper. Promised action is clearly being further delayed. I would urge the government to place a higher priority on the state of the reserves and bring forward an action agenda without further delay. To the extent that such an action agenda contains positive and realistic measures, the government can clearly rely on bipartisan support from the opposition.As I said, and I have said it on many occasions in the context of Australian employment realities, we have a society where fewer people are employed on work sites, and where there is a decreasing number of people remaining at work when others go on various forms of leave—whether it is holiday leave, sick leave, bereavement leave or reserve leave. The decreasing number of people that are there to do the person's job while they are away are increasingly resentful of this leave being taken—as are employers: once they downsize, get rid of people, they are not as keen to have people go off on leave. It is particularly worrying that this government, with the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, has been so ideologically committed to getting rid of this as an allowable matter in awards. I do not for a moment say this is by any means the be-all and end-all of why the minister is facing this problem of reserve numbers, but it is certainly part of the problem in that climate.The motion before the parliament today seeks to express the House's full support for and confidence in the Australian defence personnel serving with the multinational force and looks forward to their safe return. I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments. As shadow minister for defence science and personnel, I have met with many serving personnel and their families over the past 2½ years. I admire their willingness to serve despite the readily acknowledged hardships of service life. At the best of times, many of them, and their families, face postings to relatively isolated bases, characterised by inhospitable weather and often located great distances away from their city of origin and their extended families and friends.In the last few weeks we have dealt with the question of fringe benefits tax. The government has been pushed towards solving the monumental problem that arose there in regard to people being deprived of social welfare payments, and possibly pushed into higher child support payments, because of the impact of changes with the Australian Taxation Office and fringe benefits tax. I am pleased that at a late stage the cabinet or the ministry, or whoever finally decided to do something about this, actually undertook some action. The government can deny it, but we all know the state of morale around this kind of issue was a serious concern.It is only when situations like East Timor arise, when our personnel place themselves at risk to protect others in the broader national or international interest, that the wider community is reminded of the sacrifices of defence personnel and of our obligations to them. I readily acknowledge that the government announced last week a package of benefits that will apply to personnel posted to Timor. I welcome those measures and congratulate the government for ensuring that people know where they stand and what they can expect. I understand that many partners, children, parents, brothers and sisters will be particularly anxious in the coming weeks and months. I know that there is a range of assistance programs for defence families in place, and that staff of the defence community organisations in particular will be doing everything they can to assist.I would hope that we have learned from earlier deployments and will do better to keep the information channels open with defence families, mindful of security considerations; to provide early intervention and rehabilitation to those harmed by their experiences in Timor; and particularly to acknowledge that assisting people affected by things like post-traumatic stress disorder is just as important as caring for those with obvious physical injuries. We should also ensure that we implement ongoing health monitoring programs, an issue which the minister has had to deal with on a variety of fronts in the last year. We should seek to resolve the honours and gallantry recommendations in a timely and fair manner. In the history of our country in the post-Second World War period we have seen a number of those drag on for decades. I particularly ask the government to favourably consider the need for an Australian armed forces radio facility, as we had in Rwanda, so that for an hour or two every day personnel in Timor can hear recorded messages of encouragement and support from their partners and families and appreciate that they are in the thoughts of the wider community.As we indicated earlier, there are concerns about the state of the reserves, and more particularly we have the situation of the protection of the employment situation of the reserves if they are called there. We have parallels overseas, in the United States and Britain in particular, where their legislatures, their parliaments, have been able to deal with these matters and provide that protection. This is not a matter that has arisen suddenly; it is not a matter that the current government has created. It is a situation which unfortunately has been there for decade after decade but which this parliament needs to rectify.I turn again to the question of the broader international issue of Timor. It is very unpopular but I put on record my appreciation of the efforts of Portugal and the former Portugese colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau in their struggle to keep this matter before the international community. Whilst Indonesia has been forced by the turn of events to do something about the situation in Timor, the Indonesian people have many problems throughout their nation, whether in Aceh, Irian Jaya or Ambon. None of those has led to a decision such as this by the Indonesian government in regard to a plebiscite on their future. The reason for that is the continuing international focus centred upon Portugal and its colonies.It has been very popular in this country to decry and attack Portugal for its centuries of colonial rule. That is no answer to the performance of this country in the decades since 1975. It is not a very convincing defence. The reality was that in April 1974 a coup occurred in Portugal. The armed forces movement overthrew the crypto-fascist government of Portugal and essentially moved towards giving independence to its colonies. To attack Portugal and the way it has fought this issue out in international fora in Europe and in the various UN agencies is no excuse for this country. It has been too popular a fall back for a variety of politicians who have managed to somehow reassure themselves that a poor record of centuries of Portugese colonial occupation in some ways undermines their efforts. As I say, we would not be here today on the threshold of self-rule and independence for the Timorese if they and a number of parliamentarians, a number of organisations, in this country had not continued to fight this issue over two decades, a cause that was essentially popular in the Australian electorate but not popular in the political establishment of this country.17:59:0010071Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I rise to support the parliamentary motion on East Timor moved by the Prime Minister this afternoon and I note the support of the opposition benches. What is essential of course is that the parliament does unanimously support this motion, and we welcome the support of the other side of the House, because at the end of the day, as a result of the resolution, those personnel who go to East Timor should go with the unanimous support of this parliament, which is a reflection of support from the people of Australia.Rather than discussing the foreign policy or strategic issues which have been raised by this deployment and which have been well canvassed so far by government speakers and members on both sides of the House, as the minister with responsibility for defence personnel and veterans' affairs I would like to use this address to inform the House about arrangements in place to support the ADF personnel who have been deployed to East Timor and the support being provided to their families back here in Australia. I am pleased to inform the House that the agencies within my areas of responsibility—that is, defence personnel and veterans' affairs—have moved quickly to provide high levels of support to our ADF personnel deployed in East Timor and to their families who remain here in Australia. As the House is aware, under the UN Security Council resolution 1264 adopted unanimously on 15 September this year, the multinational force has been given the full chapter VII powers authorising it to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate. As a result of this UN peace enforcement mandate, the Australian government has decided that the ADF personnel deployed to East Timor will receive a package of allowances that recognises the demands the deployment will place on them.The personnel who have been deployed to East Timor will receive tax-free salary and allowances during their peace enforcement service as part of the United Nations International Force in East Timor. In addition to their usual allowances and benefits, troops will also receive a set of allowances relating to the deployment, totalling $125 per day. These include deployment and field allowances as well as a new East Timor peace enforcement allowance of $40 a day. Other conditions of service to which our Australian Defence Force personnel in East Timor would be entitled include: additional leave of 1½ days per month of service on deployment; additional home loan assistance, waiving the five-year qualifying period for eligibility and increasing the maximum 20-year period of the loan subsidy; and also pre-embarkation leave or reunion with a partner where practicable before deployment.It is important that we as a government ensure that our Defence Force personnel who serve on peace enforcement missions like the INTERFET mission receive the best coverage and support for compensation and repatriation benefits that we in this country can provide. Similarly, ADF personnel serving in East Timor must be able to do so in the full knowledge that their families and dependants who remain back here in Australia are well provided for in the event that they are either injured or killed while serving. In declaring the mission to be a peace enforcement mission, the government has extended coverage under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Compensation Scheme to our personnel in INTERFET. Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, they will be entitled to a disability pension for injury or disease caused by that service and lifetime medical treatment for such disability. The determination under the Veterans' Entitlements Act of the causal connection is on the more generous standard of proof. I think the history of the Veterans' Entitlements Act is testimony to that statement. Similarly, should any of our personnel lose their lives, a widow or widower would be eligible for the full benefits of a war widows or widowers pension, including health cover and support for dependent children through the Veterans' Children Education Scheme.Every member of the Australian Defence Force deployed will have qualifying service and eligibility for a service pension in case of invalidity or at age 60, subject to the normal means testing provisions. Further, members who enlisted for the first time before 15 May 1985 and serve on peace enforcement duties in East Timor will have access to a defence service home loan on the same basis as other veterans. Any other Australian Defence Force personnel will have access to the Defence Home Owner Scheme, with the waiving of the five-year qualifying period for eligibility.In addition, there are benefits available through the normal compensation arrangements for all Australian Defence Force personnel. These include access to weekly payments of compensation for income support and assistance with rehabilitation. In 1987, this government recognised the special nature of service in the Australian Defence Force by its provision of increased lump sum compensation benefits for those members who are severely injured in the course of their duties and for the families of those who lose their lives in such circumstances.As we begin this deployment, I want to take the opportunity to remind the House of my media release of 5 July this year on the strategic approach that we would take to the health of ADF personnel serving on overseas deployments. ADF personnel involved in deployments overseas are potentially exposed to a range of operational, environmental and occupational threats different to those involved in peacetime service in Australia. The effect of some of these threats may not be readily apparent on their return to Australia. Accordingly, the government has adopted a strategy, to be delivered by the departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs, to enable the Department of Veterans' Affairs to provide early treatment to veterans suffering from acute symptoms of difficult to diagnose conditions. This will allow these veterans to obtain acute care for the symptoms of medical and psychiatric conditions that it might not be possible to diagnose within a reasonable time.Further, I want to advise the parliament that a full nominal roll of those who serve in East Timor will be maintained.It is also important to consider the support that we give to the families who remain in Australia. Accordingly, a National Welfare Coordination Centre has been established to provide a 24-hour point of contact for families and the next of kin of ADF personnel deployed in East Timor. The National Welfare Coordination Centre tasks include providing the Defence Community Organisation with details of families of deployed soldiers so that they can establish contact and assess the families' needs and, further, developing family support plans in conjunction with regional Defence Community Organisation offices. This may include assistance in areas such as home maintenance. Deployed units have been instructed to provide the contact number of the centre to the families and next of kin of deployed personnel as their first point of contact with the Defence Community Organisation for welfare issues.In their initial contact with families, all Defence Community Organisation regional officers will check that the families are aware of the National Welfare Coordination Centre's numbers and its role. The National Welfare Coordination Centre will supplement the usual support provided to families by the Defence Community Organisation service delivery officers and FIND, the Family Information Network for Defence. Already in its first day of operation yesterday the centre responded to some 270 calls, mainly from family and those in the ADF. Similarly, the Family Information Network for Defence took some 140 calls yesterday, mainly from families asking about the allowances and entitlements of deployed personnel.The Defence Community Organisation has been participating in unit organised pre-deployment briefings for members and their families, and families will be given contact details for all regional Defence Community Organisation service delivery teams so that support is at the maximum levels. Further, the Defence Community Organisation will also sponsor social gatherings which will promote networking and reinforce the valuable role that spouses play. The Defence Community Organisation web site will contain an East Timor information page. This page will provide details about support available to Defence families and contact details for all Defence Community Organisation offices. The Defence Community Organisation site also offers email links to the Defence Community Organisation and FIND, and a bulletin board service that will be utilised to promote activities being offered to family members.The Defence Community Organisation, in consultation with Defence Public Affairs, in cooperation also with Telstra, the Defence Publishing Service and Toshiba, has arranged a peacekeeper facsimile service number, (02) 6201 9222, to receive goodwill messages from the public. I urge members of the House to send a message and also to encourage people within the community to do so.I understand that my time has expired, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will conclude by saying that there is a large range of measures on personnel matters that have been put in place to support our defence personnel who have been deployed to East Timor. We wish them well. They travel as custodians of the great Anzac legend and the great Anzac spirit, and I know that they will carry out their duties as peacekeepers in the time-honoured way. (Time expired)18:10:0010073Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—This is a debate of sombre moment for our parliament and for our people. It should not be about jingoism, populism or political triumphalism. It should be a debate about our past failure, our current engagement and our future danger. It is a debate in which we should all reflect on our failings towards the people of East Timor over the last 25 years, for which all parties represented in this place bear some responsibility. It is a debate in which we should reflect sombrely on the sufferings of the East Timorese; on how we, the international community, led by Australia, convinced them that it would be safe for them to participate in a free and fair ballot on their future; on how they, the East Timorese, trusted the international community, including Australia, that it would be safe to do so; and on how we, the international community, again led by Australia, betrayed their trust, deserted them and for 21 bloody days left them as lambs to the slaughter. This is also a debate in which we should reflect on the courage of our combatants now deployed in Dili as they seek to restore hope to the hopeless. And it is in this debate that we must also confront the abyss that is now our relationship with the fifth most populous country on the planet, Indonesia.How is it that we got to this crisis in the first place? The answer to this question turns on three critical points. The first is whether we should have had this ballot on independence without East Timor having gone through a substantial period of autonomy. The second is, having decided that we would have it, should we have proceeded to conduct the ballot on 30 August in the absence of any insurance for the preservation of physical security, both before and after? Third, having had the ballot, why did it take us 21 long days to scramble to secure the deployment of peacekeepers on the ground?It is, of course, easy to rewrite history. History is always easier in the recollection than in the execution. However, the historical facts are that the Indonesian government changed its policy on the future of East Timor, in large part as a consequence of Prime Minister Howard's correspondence with President Habibie last December. We also know that the Prime Minister did not at that stage advocate an immediate ballot on East Timor's future. That was President Habibie's initiative in response to the PM's letter. What we do not know, however, is to what extent the Prime Minister sought actively to discourage President Habibie from this precipitous course of action. All the central players in East Timorese independence politics argued for a long period of autonomy before proceeding to a final act of self-determination. As the shadow foreign minister noted earlier today, Australia should perhaps have taken their counsel, as those with their lives on the line, rather than being swept up into one of President Habibie's impulsive enthusiasms.But, having committed ourselves to this course of action, why did we proceed to the 30 August ballot in the absence of any effective insurance in terms of the preservation of physical security? We know that the government has repeatedly said that this was not possible because, in the New York accords between the United Nations, Portugal and Indonesia, Indonesia had refused any condition precedent on the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces—either before or after the proposed date of the ballot. We are also told that the Prime Minister raised this possibility explicitly with President Habibie in Bali but that this approach was met with outright rejection. Yet at the end of the day the government was faced with two clear alternatives: to postpone indefinitely the ballot until appropriate assurances for the preservation of security could be obtained or take the Indonesians at their word and accept that TNI itself would provide that security.The government chose the latter course of action and in doing so committed its most fundamental and, in my view, continuing analytical flaw in this entire process, that is, to assume that President Habibie was in a position effectively to provide political direction to TNI both in Jakarta and Dili. The government's line of defence is that it could not have foretold what TNI would subsequently actually do on the ground in its activities with the local militia. Given the significant intelligence assets at the Australian government's disposal, on balance I do not find this to be credible. Furthermore, if we had caused the Secretary-General of the UN to believe that the security environment after 30 August was going to be manageable, we either were palpably wrong or else ignored the intelligence advice we had been receiving.The third question we are left answer is, the ballot having proceeded on 30 August, why it took 21 days to secure the deployment of the multinational force. The government's defence is that it was impossible to assemble a multinational force or a peacekeeping force prior to 30 August in the absence of Indonesian agreement. This was the core of Foreign Minister Downer's defence in his discussion with Laurie Oakes on this subject last Sunday.However, the Minister for Foreign Affairs missed the point entirely or, more particularly, chose to ignore the critical flaw in his own logic. Nobody disputes the fact that the Indonesian government had vigorously opposed the deployment of peacekeepers either prior to or subsequent to 30 August. That is a matter of both public and private record. However, Indonesian refusal to countenance any such force prior to 30 August did not, of itself, prevent the Australian government proceeding to negotiate confidentially the heads of agreement for such a force with a number of potential participating governments.In the case of the US, the UK, New Zealand and Canada, such negotiations could and should have been conducted confidentially and to conclusion prior to 30 August. Prudent planning on Australia's part for the possibility of a rapid deterioration in the security environment after 30 August should have necessitated this course of action. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this was not done. It is on this issue that I believe this government and these ministers have been culpably negligent.Prudent scenario planning when the Prime Minister visited Washington in July for talks with President Clinton should have required the PM to do three things: first, to outline to the President in stark terms the possibility of a rapid deterioration in security unfolding after 30 August; second, to make a direct request of the President for a specific and substantial US military contribution to a possible multinational or peacekeeping force for immediate deployment after 30 August, if that proved to be necessary; and, third, to make a further explicit request to the Presi dent, the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to make direct contact with their Indonesian counterparts if and when the security environment deteriorated in order to secure Indonesian agreement for the deployment of a multinational force, including US and other personnel. My challenge to the government is simply this: to demonstrate whether the official record of the Prime Minister's discussions with the President establishes that any of the above critical exchanges occurred.Instead, the government's position seems to have been based on a wing and a prayer that somehow it would all work out in the end and that TNI would somehow honour Habibie's undertakings. The failure of prime ministerial and foreign ministerial diplomacy with the United States in particular resulted in the unseemly saga of Mr Howard and Mr Downer conducting their negotiations with the Americans over CNN in the 10 days following the outbreak of violence across East Timor.General Wiranto is no fool. He recognises weakness when he spots it and what he saw on CNN was not a coherent Australian policy reinforced by a public commitment by a coalition of states, including the United States, to the immediate deployment of a credible multinational force. What he saw instead was division, disunity and rancour. It was not until 10 days later, after the public spat between Australia and the United States had settled down and the commitment of an exceptionally modest US force had been agreed, that finally the telephone calls were made from Washington to Jakarta that secured Indonesian agreement to the dispatch of a multinational force.Australian diplomacy could have and should have guaranteed that these calls were made on 1 September, not on 10 September. Australian diplomacy could have and should have guaranteed that a multinational force was ready to roll in the first week of September, not the fourth week of September. Had this occurred, the loss of life in East Timor would have been considerably less.The formidable challenge, however, now facing our troops today in East Timor is to secure the peace in what has been a far from peaceful land. Together with other Australians, I feel unqualified pride in the professionalism, courage and integrity of the Australian troops involved in this most important deployment.There is also the as yet untold story of West Timor. Every ounce of Australian diplomacy and humanitarian aid must be dedicated to the East Timorese refugees there. Furthermore, there is the monumental task of rebuilding East Timor itself.And, finally, there is the formidable challenge of our future relationship with Jakarta itself. We must rebuild this relationship on a sustainable and bipartisan basis. The stakes are high. There are unconfirmed reports out of Jakarta today referring to the possibility of a complete severing of diplomatic relations with Australia and the possible closure of Indonesian air and sea space to Australian carriers. If these reports prove only to be partly correct, we are arguably involved in the greatest crisis in our bilateral relationship with our northern neighbour including the period of `konfrontasi'. Let us hope, with the appointment of a new President by the Peoples Consultative Assembly in November and of a new government, that we have the capacity and the maturity between us to make a fresh start. It is in East Timor's interest that we do so, it is in Indonesia's interest that we do so, it is in the region's interest that we do so and it is in Australia's interest that we do so.18:20:0010075Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I give my unqualified support to the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister and which I hope which will be endorsed unanimously by this House. Since the ballot in East Timor on 30 August, Australia has airlifted nearly 2½ thousand people from Dili, including Australians, UN staff and almost 2,000 East Timorese seeking safe haven.The UN Security Council has unanimously authorised the establishment of a multinational force under Australian command to restore peace and security in East Timor. Australia has landed forces in East Timor—some 1,500 troops already—and by tomorrow morning there will be some 2½ thousand. The Australian government has indicated a preparedness to make available 4½ thousand troops for that force. The force comprises assistance from New Zealand, Malaysia, Canada, Britain, the US, the Philippines, Thailand and Korea. There is some assistance from China. I believe some 12 nations in all will be part of what will turn out to be Australia's biggest military commitment since Vietnam and, in many respects, an even more significant military commitment than that because this is one led by Australia.I, like other members of this House, have enormous pride in the Australian fighting forces. I refer to their determination in relation to this, their ability to land—as they have—to secure the situation in Dili and the strength of their command, a command which has already shown extreme professionalism in relation to a very difficult encounter.This chain of events has come about as a consequence of a ballot in East Timor which was held on 30 August in which some 78 per cent of the East Timorese people effectively voted for independence. The ballot had high hopes. It went remarkably smoothly but subsequently it gave way to killing, despair, mayhem, looting, forced repatriation and suffering on a level which I believe shocked our nation, and shocked it severely.I have listened to some of the contributions in this debate, including the one immediately preceding which in a rather convoluted way seeks, whilst supporting the government's actions, to attack the government. This is a government which has secured 2,000 troops in Dili, a unanimous UN mandate, has made a commitment of 4,500 troops, has committed more aid than any other country, has provided the civilian police in relation to East Timor and the multinational advisers and is now leading—something Australia has never done before—a multinational force.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—What about Cambodia?CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—In relation to Cambodia, that was a UN Blue Helmet operation, which was not under Australian command—a key difference. I would have thought that was obvious. I would not have thought I would have had to make that point, but I do so because of the ignorant interjection which was just made by the member for Canberra.Let us contrast that with the situation over the last 25 years—no ballot; de facto, then de jure recognition of Indonesian control of East Timor; no ballot in relation to independence; no force; no aid; no CIVPOL; no multinational force; a recognition of Indonesian military occupation and then legal right to East Timor—and, if I may say so, backed up by a defence treaty with Indonesia which was signed by Prime Minister Paul Keating, in the presence of then Foreign Minister Gareth Evans and then Deputy Prime Minister Beazley, in Jakarta signing a defence cooperation agreement at the time. We have heard sophistry in this House, but the kind of sophistry which went on in the last speaker's speech does not fit well with a clear and considered position.There has obviously been terrible suffering in relation to East Timor, but until the UN, at the direction of and with the support and on the representations made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and with the agreement of Indonesia, gave a charter to go into East Timor any Australian landing in relation to East Timor would have been a landing on foreign soil, Indonesian soil, without Indonesian consent. In a shorthand way, that is often called a war. The efforts of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to negotiating the UN mandate and assembling the force and raising the brigade and ensuring the troops could be in Dili, as they now are, I think have been superb. I think all Australians admire the work that the Prime Minister of Australia did and the work that the foreign minister did, particularly in the UN. I pay personal tribute to the work they have put together, and I hope the work they have done is recognised by all Australians.I want to make a few longer-term observations in relation to these matters. There have been debates in our country in recent years about Australia's place in the region, about how it sees itself and how it sees its identity. The events in East Timor galvanised public opinion in a way which meant that we no longer had to ask where we were geographically: we knew this was our business. We took decisive steps to help with the humani tarian tragedy. We did not ask where our geographic responsibility started and ended: we knew this was where we had a duty. We considered it our responsibility to take a leadership role, and we are working with other countries in this regard—a clear demonstration of Australian leadership in this period in the world.Obviously Australia would not have been in a position to do that had it not been economically strong throughout the Asian economic crisis. You are seeing some of the leadership role that we were able to assume economically, diplomatically and militarily work out in direct humanitarian assistance. Secondly, and this point has been made, the fact that the APEC leaders were meeting in Auckland at a critical time gave new diplomatic impetus to the efforts of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister and illustrated the absolute importance of engaging the Asia-Pacific economies in this part of the world, our part of the world, in a direct leadership role. This is a direct illustration of the advantages of such regional association and a practical demonstration of how they assist and keep people engaged.The third observation I make is that, just as Indonesia is important to Australia, Australia is important to Indonesia. Maybe we have not been as realistic in our relationships as we should have been. We as a country have to remain engaged with Indonesia. We need to understand its aims and objectives and, importantly, it needs to understand our aims and objectives. Australia has no territorial interest in East Timor. Australia is not going into East Timor as part of advancing any other agenda, other than a humanitarian agenda, as part of its duty. We need to understand each other on a nonsentimental, open and realistic basis. Most importantly, we cannot afford to misunderstand each other and our peoples cannot afford to misunderstand each other. This is not just a matter for governments and elites; this is a matter for public engagement both ways. This is an extremely important relationship.From the Australian point of view, we have an interest in seeing a stable Indonesia which is economically secure and prosperous. We need to keep our eye on that long-term relationship which is just as important to us as it is to them. I am proud of the fact that the Australian government has made this unprecedented commitment. It will no doubt involve human costs. It will involve economic costs. It will require considerable will to maintain that commitment. It is a commitment that the government has made, with the support of the Australian people, in a humanitarian way, which is very much part of the duty and the responsibility that we accept in this region of the world.18:30:0010077McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister and the comments made with regard to it by the Leader of the Opposition and by my colleagues. Deciding to commit Australian troops overseas into areas of potential conflict or hostility is never easy. We all know when we make such a decision or when we support such a decision made by others that we are putting the lives and wellbeing of other Australians at risk and putting their families into a circumstance of profound apprehension. In addition to that, any normal person always prefers peace to armed conflict. These two logical positions mean that, in approaching a motion such as this, all members should do so, and have done so, with caution and respect. But we must also realise that nations individually and the international community collectively must respond to and attend to international crises and humanitarian disasters.There are many Australians supporting the commitment of Australian troops to East Timor who have never previously supported the overseas involvement of Australian troops. I join with them in supporting this commitment. In fact, like my colleagues the member for Griffith, the Leader of the Opposition and others, I wish the Australian diplomatic effort had been such that we had been able to participate in this commitment earlier.We heard the Treasurer speaking in admiring terms of the very recent activities of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He referred only to those activities which they have undertaken in the last few weeks. And that, I think, can be accurately described because most Australians do support the activity in mobilising this force and in getting a United Nations resolution, even though we are somewhat critical of some of the terms of that resolution. That is why we support the motion. But Peter Hartcher in his recent article described those comments and that activity as:. . . successful political recovery from a truly disastrous blunder, although it is little consolation for the thousands of East Timorese . . . So this is the context in which we have to look at the recent activity. It is no use to describe your own political activities in a timetable as if these events are only two weeks old. They are, in many ways, generations old; but they are, in these circumstances, months old. The key intelligence report which is always referred to is, of course, some six months old.There has been unprecedented criticism of the government's handling of the foreign affairs and strategic matters leading up to this commitment of our forces to the international force for East Timor. I do not recall ever seeing at such an early stage of an Australian international commitment the overwhelming weight of informed commentators describing the circumstances which led up to it as `an international debacle', `a failure of diplomacy' or, as Peter Hartcher said, `a truly disastrous blunder', and other terms condemning the inadequacy and ineptitude of the government's handling of the matter.It is a cause of great concern to me that Australia's interests and Australia's reputation are in the hands of a Prime Minister who shows no interest or flair for international activities, and of three ministers who seem, individually and collectively, not up to the task. Many of my colleagues have made detailed criticisms of the handling of this issue by the government. I endorse those remarks. My concern today and what has motivated me to join the debate is to try to put into perspective the implications of that mishandling and this issue for Australia's relationship with Indonesia and the region. In that, I share some of the views expressed towards the end by the Treasurer about these events making clear to us all the political and diplomatic implications of our geography. If it took this to make some people realise that, then I welcome that belated realisation.We cannot rewrite history. We get a lot of people saying, `All this did not happen in the last 13 or the last 15 or the last 25 years.' But the opportunity to take initiatives with regard to independence for East Timor has emerged only since the fall of the Suharto regime and the appointment of Dr Habibie as President of the Republic of Indonesia. For the previous 23 years, Australian governments of all political persuasions, with varying degrees of success and differing priorities, pursued a strategy of encouraging the democratisation of Indonesia, the liberalisation of Indonesian society, and the opening up to the world of Indonesian society and the Indonesian economy. This was clearly in Australia's interests and in the interests of ordinary Indonesians.It is important for us to remember that when this dispute is over, Indonesia will still be our neighbour, that archipelago will still be to our north. Our fundamental security interests will still be influenced by the attitude of the people of Indonesia and, if the proposal for democratisation succeeds, by the attitudes of those people reflected through the policies of the government of Indonesia, their attitude towards us and towards issues fundamental to our interests.Our economic interests will still be closely tied to the future of Indonesia, not only directly because of our important links, but because one-sixth of all Australian trade passes through Indonesian straits on the way to and from our big North Asian trading partners. Our humanitarian concerns will still be motivated by concern for the poverty suffered by millions of Indonesians about which we have the capacity to provide assistance and have historically assisted. Issues such as illegal fishing, people smuggling and other matters of profound security concern to Australia will be influenced by our relationship with Indonesia, so it needs to be well managed.We found with the fall of Suharto a window of opportunity for change. In the long term, the most profound implication of this window of opportunity is the possibility of a transition to a democratic Indonesia, a transition which may be under threat as a consequence of the current circumstances in which we find ourselves. But, with more relevance to today's debate, the window of opportunity opened for progress with regard to the continuing demand of the people of East Timor for their independence.The leaders both political and spiritual of East Timor warned against too rapid a rush to independence. The president-in-waiting of an independent East Timor, as Peter Hartcher called him, Xanana Gusmao, and the spiritual leader, Bishop Carlos Belo, did not want an immediate vote on independence. They knew the dangers of an abrupt move to claim independence. They wanted a cooling off period of five to 10 years before any ballot.There is a very interesting analogy between what might have been negotiated and the Matignon Accords negotiated in New Caledonia. The Accords had a long period of transition from a bloody civil war to a peaceful resolution, and that was what decisive, intelligent, long-term diplomacy required. It required the resolution which was applied to our negotiation of the Cambodian peace during the period of Gareth Evans's foreign ministership.There was some sophistry about the difference between John Sanderson leading that and the leadership of Australia in this particular instance. They are both instances of leadership of which in the military sense we should be proud. John Sanderson did a fine job and all the signs are that the leader of our service on this occasion will do an equally fine job. But the Matignon precedent and the Cambodia precedent would say tougher negotiation was required, a longer term vision was required. It is a consequence of this failure to exploit that window of opportunity that the transition from Suharto to Habibie provided that we find ourselves committing 4,500 Australian troops to the hazardous mission to which they have been committed and which this motion and all this House supports.I share with many in Australia the concern about the circumstances that led to this commitment. I share with everybody in this House and everybody in Australia the support for those young Australian men and women who have courageously gone to East Timor to represent our national interest. I wish them success in their mission, a safe return, and trust that as a consequence of their efficient and brave actions we will be able finally to lay the foundations for a truly independent East Timor to which the many refugees might return in safety. I support the motion.18:40:0010079Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—It is a rare occasion that this parliament comes together, as we do today, to mark the occasion of Australian forces leaving this country. We are a peaceful, free people who have made great commitments and sacrifices in the past to secure basic freedoms and restore or establish justice. The significant body of Australian men and women in or going to East Timor are doing so under the umbrella of the United Nations as members of INTERFET, the International Force for East Timor. I am proud that Australia has taken action to secure peace in East Timor.I begin by looking at the very recent past when the people of East Timor voted just over three weeks ago. They voted for the first time on the issue of whether East Timor should become an independent nation or whether it should remain an autonomous entity within the Republic of Indonesia. Three weeks ago, 344,580 people, or 78.5 per cent, voted for independence. To gain some perspective of what that means in practical terms it is worth bearing in mind that the highest two-party preferred vote of any member of this House falls short of that figure by over two per cent. It was a strong and decisive mandate.The aftermath of that historic vote is known to us all. We have seen the footage. We have heard the reports. None of us knows the number of deaths, but we can be sure that they have occurred. None of us knows the full extent of the displacement of the East Timorese people. What we do know, and what unites us as Australians, is the fact that we could not stand by and watch the innocent people of East Timor being attacked. Like all honourable members, indeed like all Australians, I deplore the horrifying acts of violence and savagery that have been reported to have occurred in East Timor since the conduct of the United Nations sponsored ballot on 30 August.In contributing to this debate, I propose to review some legal issues that have been raised in relation to the current situation. Timor became a colony of Portugal in the 16th century and it remained such until 1975. In 1960 it was listed by the United Nations General Assembly as a non-self governing territory within the meaning of chapter 11 of the United Nations. The Portuguese withdrew in 1975 and Indonesia took over and enacted a law incorporating East Timor as part of its territory in July 1976. However, it continued to be included in the list of non-self governing territories maintained under chapter 11 of the United Nations Charter. The incorporation of East Timor as part of Indonesia was recognised by Australia de facto in January 1978, and de jure in December 1978.Among the international agreements relating to East Timor is the high profile but rather short lived 1995 agreement on maintaining security. The recent abrogation of this agreement by Indonesia is not a matter of surprise to the Australian government, nor is it a matter on which to dwell at this time. Our primary concern is to see peace and stability returned to East Timor and the outcome of the 30 August ballot respected. However, let me make it quite clear that it was Indonesia's decision to terminate it.An agreement of more immediate relevance is the agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor which was signed on 5 May this year and witnessed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It provided the foundation for the United Nations presence in East Timor and for the 30 August ballot by which the people of East Timor rejected the proposal for autonomy within Indonesia in favour of independence. Given that autonomy within Indonesia was rejected, Indonesia is under an obligation pursuant to article 6 of that agreement to terminate its links with East Timor, and Indonesia, Portugal and the Secretary-General are to agree on arrangements for a peaceful and orderly transfer of authority in East Timor to the United Nations.During the period of the ballot and its immediate aftermath, Indonesia had principal responsibility under the 5 May agreement for maintaining peace and security in East Timor. After the ballot, a process of dialogue and reconciliation was needed. Instead, as we are all only too well aware, there followed a horrifying period of sustained violence by militia groups in which elements of the Indonesian security forces appear to have participated, or at the very least, acquiesced. This amounted to a clear failure on the part of the TNI and the Indonesian police to give effect to the 5 May agreement.The resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 15 September expressed in its preamble the deep concern of the Security Council at the continuing violence and intimidation by armed militia and Indonesian security forces against East Timorese civilians, including the forced displacement and relocation of large numbers of East Timorese. The council also stated that it was appalled by the worsening humanitarian situation in East Timor, particularly as it affected women, children and other vulnerable groups. Accordingly, in the first operative paragraph of the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of violence in East Timor, called for their immediate end and demanded that those responsible for such acts be brought to justice.Following the Security Council resolution, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, released her report on the human rights situation in East Timor. That report gave brief details of a number of deeply disturbing accounts given to the high commissioner of serious human rights violations in East Timor. The high commissioner concluded that there was `overwhelming evidence that East Timor has seen a deliberate, vicious and systematic campaign of gross violation of human rights'. The high commissioner condemned those responsible in the strongest possible terms.I have no doubt that the alleged acts of violence and destruction of property would constitute serious crimes against the laws of Indonesia. Indeed, they would be crimes against the laws of any other country where they occurred. It remains to be seen whether appropriate action can and will be taken under the laws of Indonesia. It is possible that no such action will be taken. It is therefore appropriate to consider what action might be taken by the international community.Customarily international law prohibits war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, for reasons which I will not detail now. The reference in this context to war crimes and genocide appears to be inappropriate. However, there is a category of international crimes known as `crimes against humanity' which include certain serious acts committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population.As listed in the statute of the International Criminal Court, such acts may include murder, extermination, deportation or forcible transfers of population, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, torture, rape, persecution against an identifiable group or collectivity on a range of grounds including political grounds, and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury. No nexus is required with an armed conflict.At present there is no established tribunal that could deal with crimes against humanity that have been committed in East Timor. For international prosecutions to take place for crimes against humanity in East Timor, it would be necessary for the Security Council of the United Nations to establish an ad hoc tribunal for East Timor under chapter VII of the United Nations charter in the same way that ad hoc tribunals have been established in relation to Rwanda and Yugoslavia.Establishment of an international tribunal requires the international community to act in concert. In her report, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has referred to a duty on the international community to act wherever human rights have been grossly violated. The report refers to certain examples. The high commissioner points out that the establishment of an international commission of inquiry into massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law is increasingly becoming standard practice. The high commissioner has expressed her intention to remain in contact with Indonesian authorities on the establishment of a commission and her preparedness to take the initiative in launching a commission.I am confident, therefore, that the international community is aware of the need to take strong action in this matter and that the proper authorities within the United Nations are taking appropriate action. For its part, the Australian government's primary present focus is on the deployment of the multinational force and the restoration, through it, of peace and security for the people of East Timor.Relevant to this is the strength of the mandate that the INTERFET forces have been given by the Security Council as they begin their task of restoring peace and security in East Timor and protecting and supporting UNAMET in carrying out its tasks. The multinational force is also authorised to take all necessary measures to fulfil that mandate.In pursuance of that mandate, the multinational force will be able, under its rules of engagement, to use graduated force that is reasonable in the circumstances, up to and including lethal force. In practical terms this means that INTERFET will operate on a different basis from a peacekeeping force that has a mandate only to monitor breaches or to occupy a buffer zone. As the Prime Minister has explained, it will not require INTERFET forces to remain inactive while atrocities are committed in front of it.In concluding, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister for his vigorous and outstanding diplomacy which has contributed significantly to the creation of INTERFET. I also commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence for the significant roles they have played. I wish all Australian men and women in INTERFET a safe and speedy return. I support the motion and I invite members to give it their unanimous support.18:50:0010081Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—One constant theme has been evident from most government speakers today. From the Prime Minister on, their constant theme has been one of self-congratulations. Both the Prime Minister and his Minister for Foreign Affairs have indicated that they believe their policies on East Timor reflect great credit on themselves. Mr Downer said:Indeed, this great credit was recognised in the corridors of the United Nations.He finished his speech by saying that to his dying day he would be proud of his policies on East Timor. The tragedy is that people have died in their thousands and it is not over yet. I do not think anyone in this place should take pride in that, least of all this Minister for Foreign Affairs and this Minister for Defence.I want to talk briefly about the geography of Timor, because it is in that environment that our troops will be operating. In the book titled Timor—Past and Present we are told:Timor is divided lengthwise by a range of mountains with summits which exceed 2,000m, the highest mountain being 2,963m. The range of mountains forms an important watershed. The mountains descend precipitously down the coast: plains and broad valleys are rare, and mostly occur along the south coast. The irregular topography often inhibits contact between even neighbouring districts. Timor belongs to the only part of the Indonesian archipelago where tropical cyclones sometimes occur.In the tropical climate it is the rain which is the physical factor which has the greatest influence on the activity of man.As I said, it is into this landscape that our troops will be going. It was in this landscape that the 2/2 and 2/1 Independent companies operated during the Second World War. And it is in this environment that Fretilin were able to operate for some 28 years.Australian troops, in my view, are going to face a difficult task in their area of responsibility. Not only will they have the terrain of Timor to contend with, but they will also have the wet season bearing down on them. Timor will prove to be a difficult strategic target, particularly if the militia have the safe harbour of West Timor to operate from and in which to take refuge. I have complete faith in our armed forces to come to grips with their task and to carry out their duties with the professionalism, dedication, courage and determination which is their heritage from eras past. What I lack faith in is this Minister for Defence. He came in here today and left me, again, with no confidence in his ability to grasp the seriousness of that which confronts our troops in East Timor and that which confronts our defence forces generally.I want to refer to a debate in this place in May of this year and to quote from what I had to say then:There is in Australia considerable concern at the run-down state of our armed forces and the lack of morale of our service personnel. If the minister got beyond the officer's mess he would find this out for himself. Evidence of this concern was well reflected by Lieutenant Colonel Ken Bladen (Retired), President of the WA branch of the Returned and Services League, who, during his Anzac Day address—I thought it was quite a courageous address—said:In August last year US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and US Defence Secretary William Cohen warned Australia that we were in danger of falling so far behind American military technology that our ability to participate in joint combined operations could be `severely restricted'.Mr Bladen went on to say:Currently, Australia is weak and unprepared.We are well aware that the RSL is an extremely conservative organisation, and for them to express such views on a day like Anzac Day is a fair reflection of the concern they and the broader community have of the run-down and neglected state of our defence forces.We also know that the Minister for Defence has said publicly that there will be no increase in defence spending in this budget. This is despite the uncertainty and instability of many regions of the world, some of which are uncomfortably close to Australia, and despite the urgent need for the upgrade of our defence equipment. A further reflection of our weakened state is seen with this government's decision to commit untrained Federal Police to East Timor rather than the properly trained and prepared Defence Force personnel who ought to be going to do a job like that.They were my views back in May. Particularly in relation to the last statement, about the need for properly trained Defence Force personnel to have been there, I have not changed my view one bit. The moment of truth is here and this Minister for Defence should put away his white paper and go. We heard him talking again today about the white paper. If he does not go, the Prime Minister should replace him. In my view, our diggers deserve better.I spend a lot of my time dealing with veterans' issues, and I was moved when I heard Mrs Walters on radio recently telling the Prime Minister about her son. The Prime Minister said we must not treat the East Timor troops the same way in which we treated Vietnam veterans. I agree. But I say this to the Prime Minister: if you genuinely feel that way, why doesn't your government do something about those Vietnam vets and their families who are still fighting for justice? Why doesn't your government do something about those Gulf War veterans who are still awaiting details about an inquiry into their health issues? They want to know what is making them ill. I say to the Prime Minister: how can anyone believe that your government will treat these Timor vets any differently when they come home to the disgraceful way in which your government continues to treat post Second World War veterans?We also heard this afternoon from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs when he came into this place and talked about what benefits our East Timor troops will be eligible for. To qualify for those benefits, of course, those troops will have to put their lives on the line. The widows pension, about which the minister spoke, is, at best, poor compensation for the loss of a husband or a father. I do not say that unkindly, and I think the Minister for Veterans' Affairs was quite genuine in talking about those issues today. But the fact is that, while we sit here in the safety of parliament, those troops are over there in East Timor facing extreme danger 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I think the compensation they get might be all right in some terms, but it is not worth your life, in my view.I am going to finish by talking about a phone call I had yesterday from the mother of a veteran. She told me that she was quite proud about her son going to serve in Timor and, although she was worried about him and she had worries and concerns, she felt that she had it all together. But she was watching the news, she saw her son get off one of the Hercules and she broke down. That leads us to a problem that we are going to have in East Timor. That relates to the very high profile that the media will give this issue and the immediacy with which those reports will come back to Australia. I would hate to think that any next of kin in Australia might receive bad news about one of their loved ones through the media. That would be absolutely unforgivable. I hope that either the media will have in place some self-regulation or the government will have addressed this problem and ensured that, should there be casualties, there are proper processes of casualty advice and notice so that the next of kin do not have to find out the worst, should it happen, via the media. I hope the government will take note of that comment.Just talking about credit, if any credit is going to be due about East Timor, it will go to those veterans, those service men and women, who will go up there and do this country proud. I support the motion.19:00:0010083Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—I wish to support the motion and point out that this is the second time this decade the House has discussed a motion to send Australian forces forward. It was on 21 January 1991, in special session, that the House of Representatives discussed a motion moved by the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in respect of the Gulf War and the Middle East. On that occasion the member for Bennelong, Mr Howard, said:. . . I believe from the very beginning the Prime Minister has behaved correctly, has displayed the correct response of a person occupying his office and has shown considerable leadership within his own Party.I contrast that with the mixed messages from this opposition this day as we consider this critical motion. In fact, this day, 21 September 1999, is a sad circumstance. Once again, Australian forces must be committed almost simultaneously with the 10th anniversary of the coming down of the Berlin Wall and the utterances that the world then faced a peace dividend. Well, there is no peace in East Timor.For me to see the conditions first-hand in East Timor briefly for a few days at the end of August and early September as leader of the Australian observer delegation to the ballot and popular consultation was a privilege. It was certainly one which gave me an insight into the challenges which are now faced by our troops as they go forward. I wish them well in the utilisation of their training to withstand whatever circumstances they might be confronted with.In supporting the troops, including those from the 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, my old unit, let me say that I have every confidence that they will work through the situations they are confronted with. The peacemaking force which comes from many countries and with different commanders will come together, work cohesively, and so establish peace and the basis on which the process can move forward for the establishment of an independent East Timor.No-one can take away from the integrity of the ballot which took place on Monday, 30 August 1999, and which was closely scrutinised by hundreds of observers from Portugal, from Indonesia itself, and from Australia. There was no official observer delegation from the USA, but there were unofficial observers from the USA and from right around the world.There have been complaints about this ballot. Indeed, one of the complaints has been formally lodged and says, amongst other things, that the ballot boxes that looked like a simplistic plastic bucket had an opening that may have allowed any person to insert a hand and change all the ballot papers. That was 5(b) of this particular complaint. I want to take this opportunity to say that the integrity of the technical side of the ballot process was very good indeed. I hold in my hand a check list from the five polling places we went to which looked at particular aspects of the material that was on hand, the correct layout of the material, the correct process on the opening of the polling place, and the like. No. 21 was the one we started at at about 6.15 that morning. We went right through and went back to No. 21 to check on the closing procedures, and they stacked up. They stacked up following a complex registration process which also had absolute integrity and the ability to double check. People were checked off on an electoral roll as they came to vote. They were marked in a way which could not be seen, which would preclude them voting twice, and the ballot boxes were sealed on the completion of that process. And all 850 of them, against incredible odds, were brought back to Dili.I salute those who have been involved with this throughout, including UNAMET led by Ian Martin; the electoral commissioner, including Jeff Fischer from the United States; the CIVPOL people led by that brilliant Australian who came out of retirement to take this risky course, Alan Mills, and all those in his team; and the military liaison people with UNAMET including Brigadier General Rezaoul Haider, a very impressive Brigadier General from Bangladesh, and supported by Australians in his team including Colonel Paul Symmon who was at UNAMET throughout most of the period until just a few days ago after the decision was announced by President Habibie that peacekeepers would be allowed in.I want to say we can be proud of those brave people who helped facilitate this ballot, and no-one can take away from the whole equation the fact that that ballot has integrity. The observer delegation, made up of non-government officers, Senator Marise Payne, Senator Vicki Bourne and shadow minister Laurie Brereton, was unanimous in affirming that from all we saw the ballot had absolute integrity. The outcome of the ballot should now go forward and be implemented. The people of East Timor deserve no less. The ballot saw an over 98 per cent turn out in the complex registration process. They walked down from the hills, cast their ballots, and 78 per cent of those ballots were in favour of independencio, or independence, from Indonesia. Twenty-two per cent were in favour of remaining within the sovereignty of Indonesia. That was a very clear cut, decisive result which should be honoured by all involved.In supporting the motion moved by the Prime Minister I say it is not just for cabinet, it is not just for government that Australian troops are committed to any particular cause, in any particular circumstance; it is also quite properly a matter for the parliament. That is why I am very glad that there is on that point of the commitment of the Australian defence forces to this INTERFET force unanimous support in both houses, and I welcome this. It was something denied to Vietnam veterans; it is something that our forces going forward with others from Thailand and elsewhere deserve, and we need to follow that through at every stage.The bravery of unarmed people in adding to the integrity of that ballot by dint of sheer courage in extraordinary circumstances has been demonstrated time and time again in the days since the ballot, but particularly in a place called Gleno where there were many incidents on polling day. In fact, the polling place had to be closed for one hour when militia entered and fired their guns into the air.But it was the next day and overnight after the polling place had closed that the ballot boxes were secured and a CIVPOL team in the area, led by Geoffrey Hazel, had to stand guard on those ballot boxes. The collection was to take place by helicopter. Imagine the scene: they decided to switch to a creek bed to load these ballot boxes into the helicopters in order to get the ballot boxes safely away, because at that stage the militia were after those ballot boxes. They wanted to destroy the integrity of the ballot in the Gleno area. Suddenly the helicopter landed, but there was a delay in opening the doors and proceeding with the loading. This led to the disaster whereby the militia came running down the creek bed, firing shots and causing the helicopter to lift off and commence a holding pattern some distance away. At this point, the CIVPOL team led by Geoffrey Hazel and others stood their ground with no arms whatsoever and surrounded those ballot boxes in distinctive blue colours. It amazed the militia that the CIVPOL team did not clear out and allow them to attack those ballot boxes. A critical stand-off occurred. The militia held their guns. They subsequently backed off, the ballot boxes were reloaded into vehicles, taken to a separate landing zone for the helicopters, subsequently loaded and got back to Dili where I saw the 850 ballot boxes in the counting compound just near the Dili airport.Geoffrey Hazel and the many others involved, including Paul Morris, Don Barnby, Peter Watt, Wayne Corbett, Rob Mills, Randy Martinet and Jim France, were just part of a huge grouping of volunteers from right around the world who did so famously well and were so courageous in bringing about the result, the ballot, and very clearly the integrity of that ballot.Finally, I also salute those in Darwin who have worked so hard to facilitate a lot of the resupply and arrangements throughout July, August and now September in a very direct way. God speed to those Australians in East Timor and to those from elsewhere around the world doing their task in East Timor. God bless them and may the task be completed safely and as soon as possible. We look forward to the advent of the independent East Timor nation.19:10:0010085Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Firstly, I want to express my full and heartfelt support for the ADF personnel who are serving or will serve in East Timor—many of them based in the Northern Territory. These men and women can take pride in the professional way they have gone about their preparations for their deployment to East Timor and, despite a relatively smooth beginning to the operation, there remains considerable potential for danger. For this reason we should all spare a thought for the families who have been left behind in Australia—those partners and children who bade farewell to the forces as they flew off, and will fly off, to East Timor. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Australians—and certainly all Territorians—when I say our thoughts and prayers are with you.I also want to acknowledge the role of the many Australians and East Timorese people who, since 1975, have tirelessly worked for human rights in East Timor and for a free and independent East Timor. Many of these people have been demonised as inconsequential and as not understanding our foreign policy imperatives and the Realpolitik of our relationship with our neighbours. Yet, despite this demonising, the freedom fighters—the East Timorese in exile and their supporters elsewhere, particularly including those in Australia—have been vindicated by recent events.I also want to acknowledge the work of the UNAMET leadership and staff, of the civilian police and the military liaison officers, as well as the UN volunteers and observers who all risked their lives in East Timor—and I applaud the comments of the previous speaker in that regard. I want to acknowledge, too, the dedicated members of the Catholic Church who have done so much good in East Timor. A central element of East Timorese life has been the Catholic faith, and the contribution of these men and women of the cloth cannot be understated. The military and militia have recognised this and have specifically targeted the church in their vendetta.What Australia is doing here is repayment of a great debt owed to the people of East Timor since World War II. In 1942, the soldiers of the 2/2 and 2/4 Independent companies, or the commandos as they became known, were engaged in East Timor. These commandos—and I speak particularly here of the 2/2, the unit with which my father fought after East Timor—worked as guerillas with the support, protection and mateship of East Timorese people. The result of this cooperation caused 1,500 Japanese casualties for the loss of only 40 Australians. The real casualties were later suffered by the East Timorese, who lost, it is argued, 40,000 as the Japanese wiped out whole villages suspected of offering succour to the Australian military. I want to acknowledge here the contribution made by some of these people, members of the 2/2, in highlighting the demands of East Timor for independence and being unstinting in this cause. I want to acknowledge particularly a great friend of my father's, Paddy Kenneally. We have a special relationship with East Timor and a very important responsibility to those people because they sacrificed themselves for this country. We have let them down before; we must not do so again.I have been committed to supporting a free and independent East Timor since it was invaded by Indonesia in 1975. I first raised the issue in this House in December 1987. At that time I quoted, among other things, a report from Amnesty International which was released in 1985 and which detailed extra-judicial executions, disappearances and systematic torture and political imprisonment of the local population. I quoted also the report of the Uniting Church's Social Responsibility and Justice Committee published in June 1987 which, in part, stated:. . . the actions of the Indonesian government suggest that the intention is to destroy the East Timorese people, spiritually and culturally.These words could have been spoken at any time in the past few months, particularly in the last few weeks, as a result of the efforts of some elements of the Indonesian military and the militia. Since that time I have been consistent in my criticisms of the policies of both Labor and Liberal governments. That view prevails today.Unfortunately, as with 1975, the East Timorese people have once again been betrayed. They have been betrayed by the international response to the threats of the militia and elements of the military. Australians and others have failed to see and respond to the signals that were emitted in a loud and clear fashion. Those signals were that the militia and elements of the Indonesian military simply had no intention of loosening their grip on power in East Timor. We knew what fate awaited the East Timorese people, but we failed utterly to respond.The East Timorese people were also betrayed by the United Nations pledge that they would be protected. These brave but powerless people went to the polling booths on 30 August with the full expectation that they would be safe from the consequences of their decision. That was not to be. Instead, the world was left with the bitter taste of witnessing the United Nations fail in its duty to protect the population from the savagery that awaited them. The East Timorese have also been betrayed by the Australian government, particularly by our Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. I will not go into a discussion now about their role because of the time, although I plan to.What we should know, as my leader has said today, is that every foreign affairs writer in Australia, including Greg Sheridan, Laurie Oakes, Paul Kelly and so on, has condemned Australia's handing of this issue. The fact is that the Howard government should have clearly seen what was about to happen and should have done something about it. It is worth noting in particular the view expressed by Brian Toohey, who pointed out on 28 August in the Australian Financial Review that the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Stanley Roth, had described Australia's opposition on the US peacekeeping force as defeatist.The fact is that while getting a peacekeeping force into East Timor was always going to be difficult, the effort was not even made, largely due to Australia's opposition. The means by which sufficient pressure could be brought to bear on the Indonesian leadership so that they would desist from their revengeful acts of murder and violent intimidation since the ballot result was announced were not put in train.The people of East Timor have also been betrayed by the Indonesian government's inability or lack of will to rein in the vicious and murderous militia and those elements of the military directly involved. It is absolutely clear that for some time elements of the Indonesian military have been dishonest and actively working against undertakings given by President Habibie to the United Nations and the East Timorese community. It was, after all, Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas who signed off on the text of the UN agreement in New York in May, which said in part:A secure environment devoid of violence or other forms of intimidation is a pre-requisite for the holding of a free and fair ballot in East Timor. Responsibility to ensure such an environment . . . rests with the appropriate Indonesian security authorities.On Sunday, 12 September, President Habibie told the world:Too many people have lost their lives. We cannot wait any longer, we have to stop the suffering.The fact is that these words and Dr Alatas's pledge meant little. The violence has continued and still continues. Other speakers, including my leader, have canvassed many of the major issues regarding the crisis. I will not canvass them any further. What I want to say is that we need to accept a responsibility to develop the network of relationships simultaneously both with East Timor and the Indonesian people and, to a lesser extent, the whole of South-East Asia. The relationship with Indonesia in particular must be built on a very different basis. It must be founded on the principle of honesty. I say to my friends in this House that that honesty is extremely important if we are to develop a fruitful relationship with any of our neighbours.Whilst many have accused us of being insensitive to the difficulties faced by Indonesia in its quest for democracy, which we must support, we cannot allow the very real difficulties to sway us from being honest, forthright and courageous in our dealings with our neighbour. We cannot allow ourselves to ignore the plight of the 250,000 or so refugees out of East Timor who are in West Timor and other parts of Indonesia. The world's attention is fixed on East Timor. We have a mandate to help East Timorese people in East Timor but not in the west. However, the refugees in West Timor will have no protection from any international force. They are on Indonesian soil and susceptible to any threats or actions of the Indonesian army or their militia acolytes. This situation is worse for the people inside West Timor.What we do know is that many alleged atrocities are occurring in areas outside East Timor. What can we do about it? It is essential that demands be made to deal with the internally displaced persons, those forced to move and those who went of their own volition but who are now under the control of the militia and military. These people must be returned to their homes as required by the UN Security Council resolution. The 250,000 or more people who have been forced to leave their homelands at gunpoint without money or belongings must not be forgotten in the rush to establish peace in East Timor. The people of West Timor are in danger of being lost in the hinterland of Indonesia for all time.East and West Timor must be declared a continuous humanitarian zone. Indonesia must provide protection guarantees for East Timorese transported out of East Timor. We need to ask that the INTERFET force in East Timor be conscious of potential war crimes sites. They need to appreciate that every burnt-out house, police station or office block in East Timor is a potential site of a war crime. The world community and this government must do all that it possibly can to bring those responsible for those crimes to account. We should be supporting all UN initiatives to this end, be it through the Security-General and the Security Council in New York or the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. This should include providing necessary forensic experts to work with those involved in war crimes investigations and other human rights abuses.We have an obligation to provide as much humanitarian aid as we possibly can to assist the rehabilitation of East Timor It is a devastated community that we have an obligation to help. (Time expired).19:20:0010088Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—At the outset, let me say that I wholeheartedly support the motion that is before the House. I want to talk about the way that the debate has gone today. Prior to doing that, I want to talk about the views of my constituents in relation to this issue. Shortly after the atrocities in East Timor became evident, a group of people formed and called themselves the Ballarat Region of the Friends of East Timor. I will read to the House the names of those people because it is an indication of the broad support in my electorate for the East Timorese, our deep community concern about what has happened to them and our desire for them to achieve what we all passionately believe needs to be achieved.The group is made up of David MacPhail from Community Aid Abroad; Victor Kaye from the Australian East Timorese Association and observer for UNAMET at the election in Timor; me as a federal member and member of Parliamentarians for East Timor; Margaret Sheehan from the Australian East Timorese Association; Mr John Shannon, the principal of Damascus College; Sister Bever ley Malcolm from the Sisters of Mercy; Bishop Peter Connors, the Catholic bishop of Ballarat; Ms Jenny Brennan from Community Aid Abroad; John Barnes, the mayor of Ballarat; Mr Sancho da Silva and Miss Ellia Maria, young Timorese people; Graeme Shearer and Brian Martin from the Trades Council; Pauline Noonan from Amnesty International; Reverend Bruce Waldron from the Uniting Church; Father Gerry Baldock from Caritas; Rod Lacey from the Catholic Commission of Justice, Peace and Development; and Bishop David Silk, the Anglican bishop of Ballarat. A working party has been established involving me, David MacPhail, Sister Beverley, Brian Martin, Pauline Noonan, Father Gerry Baldock, Reverend Bruce Waldron and Ms Andrea Shaw.One pivotal matter was that the Ballarat community got behind the views of this working group to express their outrage and horror at events in East Timor. There were some 6,000 signatures on petitions that I circulated in conjunction with the group, and ordinary Australians were able to describe their view of what needed to be done. In my view, this is Australia supporting East Timor; it is Australia supporting a group of people to whom we owe an enormous debt.The East Timorese are on our doorstep. They are a group of people who have been treated most poorly by previous governments of all persuasions. There is no argument that previous governments have let down the people of East Timor. They deserved our support and a lot more action than was ever shown. The outcome of the ballot will ultimately lead to independence, which is what the people of East Timor have always sought. Since 1975 they have not viewed themselves as anything other than independent or having the right to independence. If you look at the events of the last two weeks and put them into a historical context, some of the comments made in this House today—with the greatest respect to some opposite; this should be bipartisan—have been pointless.K26LATHAMMr Latham—A bipartisan cock-up! Is that what you want?XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I will take that interjection because I think it is a reflection on you. You might like to have a think about the statement. The simple fact is that anyone who believed that the Australian government would do anything without the Indonesian government supporting those moves has no understanding of the fundamentals of the relationship between Indonesia and Australia and no fundamental understanding of the potential outcome of that.On this very day we are sending young Australians into an area where they are at great risk. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would be prepared to dramatically increase that risk by taking a course of action that would ultimately lead to conflict? Why would we increase the risk to young Australians by taking a course of action that would dramatically increase the chances of their paying the ultimate sacrifice for service to this country? I cannot believe that it was even contemplated as a course of action. Are you saying to me that we should have gone to East Timor without the Indonesian government supporting that move? Are you seriously telling me that, when you know as well as I do that the Indonesian government made it quite clear that they would view that as an act of aggression and would make an appropriate response? That is not in the best interests of this country and it most certainly is not in the best interests of young men and women who serve this country. I cannot see that that was ever a realistic option.There is no point in trying to hide behind previous inactivity and using this as an opportunity to attack events of the last two to three months. I cannot see how that serves the people of East Timor, I do not see how that serves the Australian community, and I cannot for the life of me see what purpose it serves this parliament. We have an opportunity today to send a very clear message on behalf of the Australian people, whom we ultimately represent, about the events in East Timor. We have a unique opportunity to provide the East Timorese with something they have been pleading with this country to deliver for 25 years.I acknowledge the work of the member for Northern Territory in my early days in this parliament and his involvement in the Parlia mentarians for East Timor. It was quite clear to us what needed to be done. There had been inactivity from the government of the day and the previous coalition government. The fact is that we could have done no more then to prepare ourselves in a military sense in readiness than we did some three to four months ago.We were only able to get in there as quickly as we did after the UN Security Council resolution because we were prepared. We were able to put troops on the ground at short notice because we were prepared. This situation should never have been allowed to happen, but we cannot take the mistakes of the last 25 years and superimpose them over what has occurred in the last two to three weeks. The reality is that we have people on the ground in East Timor now. We have a commitment from the world community to do what it had not been prepared to do for 25 years—that is, to ensure that a process takes place and flows through to its ultimate outcome. We will deliver to the people of East Timor the independence that they deserve and that they should have had some considerable time ago.There are many people in Australia who have families in East Timor at the moment. There are many people in my electorate—mums and dads—who have family members in East Timor. I hope and pray along with them and with other members of this House that they come back without paying that ultimate sacrifice. They are there serving their country, and they deserve the support of this House.19:30:0010089Sidebottom, Peter, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The recent departure of Australian troops for strife-torn East Timor was a sad and sobering moment. Watching their departure on television and listening to strands of our national anthem made me reflect. `Australians let us rejoice, for we are young and free' opens our national anthem. It is a positive affirmation of our history and situation. Australia is a liberal, democratic country, born not out of strife but peace. Despite individual hardships, and not ignoring the difficult plight of many who struggle in our country, our national way of life is based on the democratic ideals of freedom and tolerance.We are not a warlike nation and militarism holds no part in our national psyche. In fact, Australia's military tradition is based around defending causes and nations from traumas caused by unbridled militarism. Our prominent role in the creation of the United Nations is a testimony to our belief in internationalism and the promotion of international affairs based on the rule of law.I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the reason Australian Defence Force personnel have developed a reputation for being good soldiers and fighters is because of the national characteristic of seeing that people have a `fair chance to have a fair go'. Australian serving men and women have fought tenaciously for causes they believe have defended democratic institutions and practices. In turn, we as a nation have an affinity with people who have helped us in these causes; hence our strong relationships with the USA, Great Britain, New Zealand, New Guinea and the people of East Timor.East Timor holds a special place in the hearts and minds of Australians. Firstly, the East Timorese people provided invaluable assistance to Australian soldiers, at great personal and national cost, in the struggle against Japanese expansionism during World War II. Secondly, and most contentiously, Australians feel that the debt we owe to the Timorese people has not been repaid. To put it bluntly, Australians feel that successive national governments have ignored the plight of the Timorese people in the face of colonial exploitation and misrule under the Portuguese and blatant abuse and economic decimation by military factions of the Indonesian army or TNI.Now is not the time to explore in detail the rationale behind successive governments' policies in East Timor and claims of sovereignty by Indonesia, but I think it is accurate to say that, in light of recent tragic events in and about East Timor, the Australian people believe that Kissinger realism, or pragmatic appeasement, has been a failure. It has failed to protect the lives and livelihoods of the East Timorese people from Indonesian military abuse, from colonisation by pro-Indonesian Timorese and non-Timorese, and ultimately from a murderous pro-Indonesian militia.In effect, whatever the policy or policies are called, they have failed to prevent wholesale slaughter and genocide and the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of East Timorese people. We do not know how many have been relocated, and we do not know where. The International Committee of the Red Cross claims that, from a population of nearly 900,000, some 600,000 have been internally displaced and a further 200,000 refugees are in West Timor and neighbouring islands. Equally appalling is that we do not know how many people have lost their lives in the long years of prelude to, and during, the recent carnage.No doubt Indonesian armed forces chief General Wiranto's rationalisation of the complicit role of the TNI in the murderous work of the pro-integrationist militia in East Timor has appalled members; likewise his claims of yesterday that army reports list under 100 deaths from the looting, murder and carnage of recent days. This is the talk of denial as Wiranto and his ilk seek to blame the victims rather than the perpetrators.Australians join UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in her vow to pursue the establishment of an international commission to investigate human rights violations in East Timor, which she rightly claims have `shocked the world'. In a report to the UN Security Council, Mrs Robinson cited overwhelming evidence of `murder, maiming, rape and countless other atrocities committed by the militias with the involvement of elements of the security forces.' As Mrs Robinson argues, there must be accountability for the grave violations committed in East Timor.A second serious failure of policy is that it has not secured and guaranteed stronger ties and relationships between Indonesia and Australia. Insecurity abounds in East Timor and in the region. Australia's actions in relation to East Timor are now seen by elements in the Indonesian government and military as aggressive, confrontationist, jingoistic and unfriendly. Is this because it is in fact the case? No. The situation is that Australia has rightly offered leadership at a time when domestic politics in Indonesia and a less suspecting international community have come to terms with the decision by the Habibie administration to hold a UN-initiated ballot on East Timor's future. On 30 August, the people of East Timor overwhelmingly chose independence. The subsequent upheaval and tragic events following demanded an international response.The United Nations' responsibility is to secure peace and manage the transition from integration to independence. To do this it was necessary to enforce a peace, and Australia has played an important role in securing UN Security Council resolution 1264 authorising a multinational force to restore peace and security in East Timor, to protect the United Nations mission and to facilitate humanitarian assistance.Whatever may be said of the diplomatic tactics of this government during the lead-up to the ballot—and history will judge this—the fact that Indonesia failed to secure the protection of the East Timorese people after the ballot meant that she abrogated her right to prevent a United Nations sponsored force to secure peace in East Timor. Australia's leadership of this multinational force recognises our nation's close relationship with and to East Timor. This is the commitment many people sought decades ago, but I believe Australians generally agree that it is only right and proper that it occurs now.Defence Force personnel are now in East Timor to secure peace and to prepare the ground for the transition of East Timor to an independent nation. They lead and are part of the United Nations sanctioned force. They leave our shores in peace but do not face peace. Their task is dangerous, but make no mistake: their task is right and just.The Australian people are proud of our defence force personnel and confident they will carry out their difficult task with professionalism, dedication and due care. There are personnel who come from the north-west coast of Tasmania whose families anxiously await their return. I share with them our best wishes and hopes for a quick and safe return.There are immense difficulties facing the people of East Timor, and their future is by no means clear. What is clear is that they are no longer alone. In their moment of complete desperation there is international recognition of their plight—and whether this is close to too late it is nevertheless there. Australia and the international community at large are united in their endeavour to peacefully restore the people of East Timor to their homeland. This will be strategically and practically difficult given the limited mandate of the current peace enforcement and later peacekeeping forces.However, the Australian people appear united, firstly in their outrage over the recent events in East Timor and, secondly, in their acceptance of Australia's military, humanitarian and diplomatic role in securing peace and the future of East Timor. So too we need to clearly communicate our desire to live in peace and close cooperation with our Indonesian neighbour as Indonesia continues its rocky path to democracy and economic recovery. Our dispute and disappointment is not with the Indonesian people but with elements of the Indonesian government and military. Restoration of positive relations will take time and patience but it must happen, and I am confident that what we share in common will prevail.Finally, as Mrs Robinson points out, the international community's responsibility is not just to ensure the protection and future of the East Timorese people; equally, it is to bring to justice those people responsible for the wanton destruction and gross violation of human rights. They should do this on behalf of the innocent victims of this inhumanity. East Timor demonstrates again that in modern conflict civilians are no longer just victims of war but instruments of war. Australia and the international community are right to be in East Timor, for unfortunately it is better to be late than never. For Australians it is a debt long overdue for repayment and in the worst of circumstances. We have great confidence in our defence force personnel and we wish them a safe tour of duty and a speedy and safe return.19:39:0010092Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In supporting the Prime Minister's motion tonight I would like to pay tribute to and salute the members of the Australian Defence Force from Townsville. Members of the parliament will know that Townsville hosts the ready deployment force—the force that responds to these sorts of things within 24 hours if necessary. Indeed, many elements from the ADF in Townsville have played a major role in this particular mission. Those elements have included the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, the major force who were first in; 5th Aviation Regiment, the Blackhawk helicopters that arrived today after flying 1,000 kilometres from Tindal through Darwin to Dili; 4th Field Regiment; 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment; and elements of 10th/4th Support Battalion. In all, there are a large number of men and women from Townsville and Thuringowa who are certainly very strongly supporting this particular peacekeeping mission.I was very privileged on Sunday evening to attend the lines of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville to farewell the troops. They knew at that time that they were going, but they did not quite know when. Indeed, it was later that evening that they were out of Townsville and off to Timor. It was a great evening—if I could express it that way. The feeling among the men and women of the 2nd Battalion was electric. They had spent many years training to do this very thing, and they were going. Led by Colonel Mick Slater, a very able commander and certainly someone destined to go places in the ADF, the men and women had a considered approach—as the government has had a considered approach. They knew that they were there on a very important mission, but it was going to be a dangerous mission and they had to be very careful in their approach.There were some light-hearted things. I was talking to Corporal Matt Parsons. He was to be engaged this Saturday. His fiancee is in Townsville and he is in Timor. A number of marriages—in fact, I think, three—took place in the week before the battalion left, as that was considered appropriate. That was good to see. Captain Geoff Meekan bailed up the Prime Minister and said, `PM, will you give me an autograph?' What he asked the Prime Minister to autograph was very special to him. It was a picture of him and his fiancee. The Prime Minister wrote a message on the back of that, and I know that it means a lot to Geoff that he has that from the Prime Minister.Earlier, the Prime Minister referred to having dinner in the mess that night. It was a magic occasion. The Prime Minister and his wife sat with the private soldiers. A private soldier said to the Prime Minister, `Now I've got you, John, I want to tell you what I think about the ADF.' Isn't it wonderful that, in this country, a private soldier can get hold of the Prime Minister of Australia, call him by his first name and say, `John, this is what I want to tell you.' I hope that long goes on in this country. Later that evening while the city slept, the RAAF base was alive with activity. Group Captain Greg Weekes, Wing Commander Chris McHugh and others oversaw five Boeing 737s, a Boeing 747 and eight Hercules running a shuttle mission between Townsville and Darwin. It was a huge exercise.Running on top of that will be the base's role in Crocodile 99. They will have several hundred people there for that in the next week or so. I believe they will also have several hundred foreign troops there in their acclimatisation process which is going to take place in the next week or so. While there has been a lot of focus on the Army, we should never forget the contribution of the Royal Australian Air Force and the important role they have and, of course, the Royal Australian Navy.I was very privileged yesterday to be in Darwin, again, to be among troops from Townsville. The 3rd/4th Cavalry Regiment and 4th Field Regiment were at Robertson Barracks yesterday, and they have now gone to Timor as well. I met Major General Peter Cosgrove and the commanders from the other nations. He is a very impressive person and is very well suited to lead the Australians and the international mission in Timor.I do not think the RAAF base has ever seen so many aircraft. As I went past to return to Canberra, there were 15 Hercules, two Boeing 747s, a C-5 Galaxy, the ground attack aircraft of the Philippine Air Force and a number of F16s from the United States Air Force. Sitting at the port was HMAS Jervis Bay, which is also in Dili at the moment. I am very proud to be an Australian when I see the effort and the professionalism that has gone into Australia's and, indeed, the coalition's response.I would also like to say that, in the last two days, I have received many faxes of support from my community in Townsville and Thuringowa. A range of people have been motivated to send our troops good wishes, as we would all want to. They have come from local business people such as Peter and Annette James at the Gardens Fruit World in Townsville; Michelle at the Home Brew Shop; and Jan, Tony, Iain and Tina at KartZone. The twin cities business community is right behind the ADF. Messages have been sent from people in government departments such as the staff at the Townsville Centrelink call centre, the great crew at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the State Department of Natural Resources and the Australian Customs Service. Thank you to everyone who has sent their message of support.Many local non-government and welfare organisations, such as the Salvation Army, the Good Shepherd Nursing Home, the Townsville RSL and the Endeavour Foundation, have also sent through messages of love and support. Thank you all. Many local individuals and families—Lou and Ann Wagner, Terry and Marcia O'Donnell, Eric and Dorothy Dwyer and Graham and Marjorie Kneale—also sent messages of support, which I will ensure are passed on. I am compiling all these messages and many more for a book to be presented to the men and women of the ADF based in Townsville. Today I sent a letter to each member's and senator's office asking for their individual contribution and message of support as representatives of their respective communities. I warmly welcome messages of support for the ADF in East Timor from all my colleagues in this parliament, and I will be delighted to add their messages to the many I have received in the last two days.Each of these messages is special; they are heartfelt statements of support for our men and women deployed in East Timor. While each is special, one in particular touched me to the very core with its sincerity and simple elegance. It reads:To the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and particularly those based in Townsville . . . You are in the thoughts and prayers of the people working in Centacare Catholic Family Services Townsville as you undertake a potentially hazardous but profoundly necessary mission to bring an end to atrocities committed on the people of East Timor.You will not only be protecting lives but you will be preparing the ground for the birth of a new nation who will be our very close neighbour.You go, knowing you have the support of your families, friends and loved ones, but also of the entire nation. You have been nurtured and reared in a country that treasures democracy, peace and freedom.You have all the necessary skills and training for this task. Most of all you have Australian hearts that respond warmly and with fairness to the oppressed and abused.We are most grateful that you do this on our behalf and know that we are with you now and into the future.Sincerely, Tony McDermott and the people working in Centacare.While this particular message was written on behalf of the Centacare team in Townsville and Thuringowa, may I be so bold as to suggest that this message of peace, love and support sums up simply, accurately and eloquently the thoughts and feelings of all Australians. It is moments like these that I live for in my job as the federal member for Herbert—to see the pride and support that the members of the Townsville and Thuringowa community have for our nation, for the members of the defence forces and their families and, perhaps most importantly, for the principles of peace and democracy. These are the messages that I have received so far. There are quite a number of them from all walks of life. (Time expired)19:49:0010093Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The tragedy of East Timor is a wake-up call for Australia. Before I address the imperatives for us as a nation, I want to say something about the future of those members of the armed services that now make up Australia's commitment on the ground in East Timor. I want to make sure they know that Australia unequivocally supports them not just in their present engagements but also by supporting their families at home while they are away and when they return. Our commitment to them is something that must extend well into the future, just as it did for my father, who first fought in Borneo more than 55 years ago. Theirs is not a peacekeeping mission; it is a peacemaking mission. They deserve the full recognition and benefits accorded to their predecessors who fought in the theatres of war, some of whom were deemed to be peacekeepers but who are still fighting to secure their veterans' entitlements.Let us agree, on a bipartisan basis, that those Australians who now risk their lives to secure a future for East Timor are assured a future for themselves and their families. Let us also ensure that those who suffer medically will receive generous compensation. Let us resolve to do our utmost to support their families while they are away. Let us also put past conflicts into today's context and resolve to put an end to some of the miserable penny- pinching in Veterans' Affairs, which is particularly resented by veterans of the Korean, Vietnam and Malay crises.Last Saturday, I was at the Brighton Shopping Centre in my electorate. A lady asked me why we had to send our troops to East Timor—`Why don't we just let them sort out their own problems?' The day before, I had been told about a parent in my electorate who had been planning his son's wedding. The grandmother had in fact flown in from England, and a huge family wedding was planned. His son phoned on Thursday and said, `Dad, call off the wedding. I'm getting married in 20 minutes, and I am going to Dili on Sunday.' Set this against the account by a federal policeman, which was sent to the Senate, also last Thursday. I quote:On Wednesday after the election I was walking down a street when a truck pulled up in front of me, a barricade was thrown out and militia jumped out. An East Timorese person came around the corner and they just shot him in the chest. They ran over to him and started to hack him up, and I ran in the opposite direction as quickly as I could. It was that simple, it was that quick.I said to the lady in Brighton that the genocide could not be ignored, that we could not turn a blind eye. This is something that all in the military, especially those who have married in the last few days, readily understand. It is the reason they enlisted and it is why thousands of people in Lilley have expressed their concern in the past week in local petitions and by other means. I guess the sentiment that is coming through in Lilley and across the country was best summed up by Democrat Harold Ickles. He said:. . . freedom, like peace, is indivisible. We cannot retain our liberty if three-fourths of the world is enslaved. Brutality, injustice and slavery, if practised as dictators would have them, universally and systematically, in the long run would destroy us as surely as a fire raging in our nearby neighbour's house would burn ours if we didn't help to put out his.This is a crisis next door. This is a crisis in the neighbour's house. This is a wake-up call for Australia. The alarm has gone off and the hands on the clock of history are pointing firmly towards a time for caution, a time for taking a long hard look at ourselves, a time for admitting past wrongs and righting them for the future. It is not a time for point scoring; it is not a time for jingoism; it is not a time for exaggeration and it is not a time for drama. It is a time to decide whether we as a nation are mature enough to grow up, to accept our responsibilities and obligations and to prepare ourselves for a secure future for our nation and for our children.This is a new dawn for Australia. As we awaken to it there are some things we have to start taking seriously—our isolation, our size and our diplomatic and economic independence. We have to become more self-reliant—politically, economically and intellectually. We have to shake off the short-sighted nonsense that has sabotaged political debate and public policy in Australia over recent years and start to invest again in public goods like education, health and, of course, defence.This crisis tells us that there is a strong role for government in Australia, and all of the public goods that make this country strong. Today we must reaffirm that there is more to the strength of the country than simply the strength of the budget balance. Savage cuts to Defence in recent years have been short-sighted, as has the retreat from an industry policy that is so essential to the self-reliance of a strong and independent nation. I will have some harsh things to say about the competence of the Howard government's approach to the Timor problem, as have many—and not just in the Labor Party. We must accurately catalogue these mistakes if we are to avoid repeating them. The government's mistakes are born of a lack of vision, a lack of planning and complacency.It is true that no-one could have foreseen the complete picture of brutality and savagery displayed after the ballot in East Timor, but the writing was on the wall. The government was either too complacent or unwilling to read the signs and to take action. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. While the East Timor tragedy loomed, our Prime Minister talked to the US President only about lamb, and he did that in the miserly 20 minutes that he was allocated. Only eight days after the ballot, following days of killing and mayhem, according to Greg Sheridan, the United States was unaware of the true nature of the crisis. As Sheridan said:Last Saturday, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton told an Australian visitor no Australian had raised the possibility of peacekeepers with him until 48 hours before that time. Given what we're trying to organise, that is astonishing.The success of the Government in putting together a peace force this week should not obscure one crushing fact—the holocaust in East Timor is a direct consequence of the failure of Australian policy.Of course the priority now is to save East Timorese lives, but if the Government is allowed to get away with its catastrophic mishandling of East Timor, we will have learned nothing from the tragedy.The fact is that the signs of the crisis were readily evident, but we had ignored them. There were close to 2,500 Australian personnel in the field when the ballot was held and even then the Australian police were shot at and military observers were at risk and threatened. The government failed to heed that warning. But the failures go back further than the immediate period surrounding the ballot, as Laurie Oakes has outlined. I quote:In early March for example, the Defence Intelligence Organisation told the Government that the Indonesian military in East Timor was protecting and operating with the murderous militia . . . the Defence Minister was at least `turning a blind eye.'In April and again in May, Father Francisco Barreto, the director of the Roman Catholic aid group Caritas in East Timor, told Downer that, after the ballot, the militias would embark on a scorched earth policy coordinated by the military, people would flee to the hills, starvation would be a major problem and Australia should prepare to help. Oakes asked, reasonably, given these facts:Might not things have been different if Australia had got Clinton up to the mark earlier? Did Australian diplomacy fail dismally here? Or did we not even try?Despite all of this evidence, the Australian government pushed the East Timorese vote and the East Timorese placed their faith and trust in us and in the United Nations. When they voted, they voted for liberty and, unfortunately for many, this resulted in death. It is clear that Australia and the UN plunged into approving a ballot on independence without plans to protect the people involved if the Indonesian army turned against them, despite all of the warnings that this would happen. The government failed in its commitment to warn and protect the people of East Timor. In letting down our neighbours, we have let down ourselves. East Timorese lives have been lost. Now Australian lives are at risk. The government failed in not negotiating the presence of international peacekeepers in advance of the ballot. The government has miscalculated both the East Timor ballot and the Indonesian response.So where do we go from here? We must look to the future. We must learn from our mistakes. We must do the right thing by our troops and their families. We must, as a nation, build our self-reliance. That means investing in our nation and walking back from the notion that market forces alone can secure our future and that government has no role in setting our course. I quote from a speech the opposition leader gave a few days ago be cause I think it aptly sums up where we are and where we need to go:This tragedy has shaken our relationship with our nearest and largest neighbour to its deepest foundations, and with it a whole series of postwar assumptions about our place in the world.We have been reminded of just how alone we really are and how we must make our own way in this region. I believe the events of recent days must reaffirm for us the need to be a self-reliant nation. Self-reliance means developing our industrial capacities—making sure that Australia has a strong and independently viable presence in those industries which will be the standard-bearers of a new industrial age.I hope the terrible events of recent days at least help us to free ourselves from the short-termism and narrow individualism which have characterised the Australian political debate in the last three years. We must do our utmost to assist the transition to democracy in Indonesia. But the answer to this mess does not lie in isolationism, nor does it lie in naive diplomacy and false platitudes. It lies in a hard-headed approach. The dark side of humanity has too frequently emerged in this century. Generations of Australians have sacrificed their lives to defend liberty and freedom at home and abroad. We owe it to them to continue this tradition. In the next millennium, we will survive only if we become a robust, independent nation with a capacity to defend ourselves. But that is not enough. We must be intelligent enough and tolerant enough to engage our region and pursue mature relationships with our neighbours. If we are strong but good neighbours, we will have the clout and respect to live freely in a prosperous and friendly democracy. (Time expired)20:59:0010096Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I support very strongly the motion put forward by the Prime Minister. The lead contributions by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Minister for Defence, John Moore, have been magnificent. My wishes and the wishes of the constituents that I represent in Indi in north-east Victoria for the safe return of our defence forces are expressed very strongly. We look forward to their safe return. We know that they are going to a very dangerous place and on a dangerous mission to defend the innocent people of East Timor.The people of East Timor deserve the help and support of the nations which are supporting Australia through the United Nations resolution. It is true that governments of both persuasions in past years have not faced up to responsibilities to the East Timorese. That has been acknowledged by some Labor speakers but not by all. In a debate as important as this, it is necessary to understand that the people of Australia overwhelmingly support the actions of the Prime Minister. There have been many messages of support from ordinary people. Also, it is necessary to understand and appreciate the contribution of the Defence Force families who remain in Australia and support their loved ones while they serve overseas.Today in the Albury-Wodonga paper, the Border Mail, there was an article referring to a Bandiana mother—Bandiana being the large Army base in Wodonga—Mrs Diane Heath, who has particular reason for paying attention to the events unfolding in East Timor. She has two sons representing our country in East Timor: Wayne, aged 23, an engineer and parachutist, and Travis, aged 20, a member of the infantry moved from Townsville some 48 hours ago. She said that she was not surprised that her sons had chosen to follow in their father's footsteps—their father served in the Australian Defence Force for many years. She is nervous that they are going into a hostile situation and says, `We are just hoping for a safe return.' She said that hearing the news that paratroopers flew out this morning was the notice she got that one of her sons had gone. She said that there is nervousness and apprehension `but we support what our sons are doing'. She said that their grandfather had been in touch because he, too, had served this country and was also proud of the two boys who were going to East Timor. She said that this has impacted on all of the relatives and `our phone is running hot. They seem to know it is their job,' meaning their sons, `it is their role and that they are there to do it and will do it well.' I thank the Border Mail for recording so well the comments of a mother who has sent two sons to East Timor.I want to contrast that and say how sad it is that some of the speakers from the other side of the House have spoken with mischief and inappropriately on this motion. They should be condemned for that. Also, the Leader of the Opposition supported the motion, but then talked about the role leading up to the defence forces from Australia being sent to Timor in a quite extraordinary and politically opportunistic way which was out of context. Mr Beazley has been a defence minister. On Tuesday, 14 September, on radio station 5AN in the Philip Satchell program, Mr Beazley said:What we said at the time was that, what we did at the time, when I was defence minister, defence spending increased in real terms, every year I was defence minister.That is not correct. I would not normally point that out in a debate like this, but in this context I have just read what a mother said about her two sons and how she supports them and is proud of them, and this debate should be about their contribution. But we have a Leader of the Opposition creating mischief, telling the public that while he was defence minister he kept the funds up, when in fact Labor's defence spending has a history of a broken promises.In 1984-85, Labor promised growth in defence spending of 4.5 per cent but delivered only 2.8 per cent. In 1985-86, they promised growth of 4.5 per cent but delivered only 2.9 per cent. In 1986-87, they promised growth of 3.8 per cent but delivered minus 0.4 per cent. In 1987-88, they promised growth of 3.3 per cent but delivered minus 1.1 per cent. That should be recorded, in view of what was said in that radio program.We thank and support the men and women of the defence forces and their families. In my area, in Bandiana, the people in the community I represent will do what they can to support and encourage the wives and loved ones who are back in Australia while their families are serving this country. I want to pay tribute to them. They are well prepared. For them now to be in East Timor in such a short time since the ballot was taken 2½ weeks ago is a remarkable achievement, showing preparedness, preparation and training. While at the same time people from Bandiana are involved, other members of the Defence Force from around Australia are involved also. I would like to pay tribute to the fact that there is also a safe haven for the Kosovo refugees in North Bandiana, and the people there are doing a fantastic job.I am very proud, as I think all Australians are, of the contribution and service that our Defence Force personnel give. We should be getting right behind them; we should be ensuring that this debate is endorsing that, and that this debate does not have too much of the opportunism and the mischief-making which we have heard injected by some speakers from the other side. I think it is fair for people on both sides of parliament to reflect, and it is fair for us both to acknowledge that past governments of both political persuasions over the last 25 years have not stood up enough for the people of East Timor.When I started my law training in a law firm, one of the partners of that law firm was the late Captain Harry Flood. There are books written about Captain Harry Flood. He was a commander in Timor. The Japanese pursued him for months because he was reporting the movement of ships very effectively so that the Japanese convoys could be identified and action taken. The East Timorese provided safe haven and helped him to survive. So I have an early impression and knowledge of the contribution of those wonderful people, and I am very glad to see that we are there now working to help them achieve, I hope, their peaceful democracy.At the same time, it is important that we indicate to the people of Indonesia that we are still their friends, that we do not condemn the people of Indonesia. There are elements in that country that we do condemn, but the people of Indonesia are still our friends, and we must work hard to ensure that people do not further alienate us from the people of Indonesia. These are very trying and challenging times for all of us, and we must work hard on that. We have to make sure that our language is temperate and understanding so that we do not build unnecessary barriers and unsettle this part of the world. This part of the world is Australia's future; it is no-one else's. It is Australia's future, and we have to ensure that our neighbours understand that we are not a threat to them and that we understand the struggle for democracy very well.Another point I would like to make is that in all the history of Australia and our intervention and involvement in conflict throughout the world we have never been seen as aggressors. Australia has a proud record, a fantastic record. When our defence service personnel have left our shores, as they have many times, to help in other parts of the world, they have never been seen as aggressors. They have always been seen as friends—as friends, protectors and peacemakers. Now they are in a role as peacemakers.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—The Vietnamese really agree with that.XU5Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMAN—If you talk to the Vietnamese, they understand very much the role of Australia. I have spoken to quite a few of them involved in that area. I think it is a very proud record, and one that we should appreciate very much in the context of this debate. (Time expired)20:09:0010098Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—The two great disasters of Australian foreign policy in my lifetime have been Vietnam and East Timor, both the product of faulty decolonisation processes, both the responsibility of ill prepared and inadequate coalition governments. Make no mistake: the tragedy in East Timor is a consequence of the foreign policy failings of this government. As Paul Kelly wrote last week:John Howard and Alexander Downer trusted President Habibie too much and underestimated his weakness; they misjudged the Indonesian nationalistic bent to hold on to East Timor; they misread the risk in seizing the opportunity for a ballot this year.Those who led the charge for an act of self-determination in East Timor made a serious strategic mistake. They regarded events in East Timor as more important than events in Jakarta. As I pointed out to the House in February: `Australia is falling into a very bad trap, and that is to think that Timor is more important than the reform process in Indo nesia itself. In fact, East Timor needs to be treated as a subset of the broader reform process. Let us not run the Indonesians out of East Timor and create the same problem as when the Portuguese left.'Only once stability had been achieved in Jakarta should self-determination have proceeded in East Timor. Australia lost sight of good foreign practice and our own national interest. It is not possible to understand these errors without first understanding the history of Australia's relations in South-East Asia. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Menzies government rattled the sabre at Indonesia, notably on the question of West New Guinea and confrontation. Worse still, it abandoned relations with China and led Australia into the folly of Vietnam. Our relations in the region were wrecked by three pieces of poison: the alleged downward thrust of communism, sectarian fears about religious persecution in Asia, and racism—a paternalistic foreign policy in the mould of White Australia.Menzies exploited each of these issues for domestic political reasons. None of them was ever repudiated under Calwell's leadership of the Labor Party; they split the ALP in two. In each case their resolution was left to Gough Whitlam. While on this side of the parliament we honour Whitlam's foreign policy triumphs—the normalisation of relations with China, the final withdrawal from Vietnam, independence for PNG and the stabilisation of relations with Indonesia—we also tend to view these achievements in isolation. In fact, they were linked by a common thread: Australia's first ever constructive engagement in our region. The poisons of communism, sectarianism and racism were replaced by good foreign policy, not just in its own right but as a critical part of Whitlam's domestic strategy. External stability was a precondition for social policy expansion. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his outstanding public lecture on Whitlam last week:Gough feared a situation of permanent hostility (in our region) would demand an economically crippling defence budget and create an atmosphere in Australia which would crowd out any broad social agenda.It is only in this light that the diplomacy of the Whitlam government in 1975 over Timor can be properly understood. Yet, as Gough has pointed out, his critics have no clearer understanding of this history in Australia than they do of current events in Jakarta.In the 1960s Lyndon Johnson discovered the impossibility of funding both his great society and victory in Vietnam. Australian politics is about to run into a similar reality. In the first decades of the coming century, Australia will not be able to resource both a knowledge society at home and the costs of suspicion and hostility towards our largest neighbour abroad. Already this government has flagged its intention to increase defence outlays at the expense of education, health and other community services. The tragedy of East Timor is about to become an issue for Australia's social institutions. Ironically, those who campaigned hardest on East Timor over the past 25 years are now likely to complain the loudest over the national neglect of social policy.We need to be cautious about the domestic costs of an independent East Timor. No matter the pressure mounted by the usual suspects in the media, Australia cannot afford to become the umpire for future border skirmishes and tensions on the two sides of Timor. This is the proper role of the United Nations. Just as much, effective foreign policy can negate the recent knee-jerk reaction calling for massively increased defence expenditure. Australia needs to get back to the basics of our strategic position. The first of these is self-defence. While obviously Australia needs a strong capacity to defend itself, the scale of this task needs to be kept in perspective. As Defence Minister Robert Ray said in launching the 1994 defence white paper:No country has the capability to seize and hold major territory on our continent. Significantly, we believe that no country plans to develop such forces.In practical terms, Australia's defence from an unprovoked attack is not likely to be a lonely exercise. We are not isolated in the world. We have alliances and shared interests in key parts of the Asia Pacific. We are a respected participant in the processes of the United Nations. Our foreign policy needs to further integrate these interests. This is best achieved through free trade and investment. With the end of mankind's two great global struggles—communism and imperialism—shared economic interests are the best defence of Australia's strategic interests. This strengthens the case for a free trade agreement between Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States and Canada, plus trade treaties with China and India.The second basic principle is regional defence cooperation and dialogue. Unfortunately, this government has done little to advance the new regional security architecture proposed by Foreign Minister Evans earlier this decade. Australia needs to strengthen its defence relationship with the region's small nations such as Singapore, Thailand and South Korea. We need to manage a four-cornered strategy with the region's major powers—China, Japan, India and Indonesia. Such are the political and cultural differences between Australia and our neighbours that personal relationships at a leadership level are a critical part of Australia's diplomacy. The strong and effective relationships forged by Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating and Gareth Evans over a long period of time have not been replicated by this government. Australian foreign policy is paying the price for our most isolationist Prime Minister since Joe Lyons. Every member in this House knows that Mr Howard is unlikely to form a positive relationship with any of Asia's leaders.The third principle is a realistic understanding of our alliance with the United States. It has been clear for decades that ANZUS is limited to two key matters: the American intelligence bases in this country plus the contingency of a direct military threat to Australia. ANZUS was never used to justify Australian or American involvement in Vietnam. It was never invoked to legitimise Australia's support of US forces in the Gulf War. It was never going to apply to the circumstances in East Timor. Media expectations to the contrary were quite naive. There is, of course, a permanent ambivalence in the foreign policy of the United States. This is a debate as old as the republic itself—between isolationists and internationalists. It should be no surprise that following the end of the Cold War it is harder to engage the United States, especially at a congressional level. This is why Australia needs to work harder at the American relationship and note the evolutionary nature of ANZUS. We need to deal in hard-nosed realities, not a pathetic romanticism about our great and powerful friend. ANZUS was signed by Menzies and Dick Casey in 1951 with two purposes in mind: protecting Australia from renewed Japanese militarism and saving Australia from the communist threat. Neither purpose now applies. New words and formal ties are needed.In the past, defence hawks have tried to distort Richard Nixon's 1969 Guam doctrine in order to justify greater Australian defence spending. Yet, as Henry Kissinger and Marshall Green have made clear, Nixon did not direct his demand for self-reliance in Asia at Australia; nor has Bill Clinton. ANZUS remains relevant to the defence of Australia when our sovereignty is threatened, not when we get involved in sovereignty disputes overseas. ANZUS should not be broken but recast to reflect contemporary issues of mutual advantage for Australia and the United States—that is, intelligence, technological and logistical cooperation, collective security goals in the Asia Pacific and the role of the US in nuclear deterrence.As this incompetent government has shown, those who forget the history of East Timor—and, indeed, the history of Australia's place in Asia—are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. Our country deserves better than having to pay the price for failed foreign policy. I join with other members in wishing the peacekeeping force every success and safety and in wishing the people of East Timor well in the establishment of an independent nation.20:19:0010100Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Few countries in the world follow events in East Timor as closely as we do in Australia. To some extent, the Australian troops who served in Timor, in World War II and were then aided by the Timorese have sharpened this interest. The events of 1975, when Indo nesia invaded East Timor, and the deaths of five Australian journalists at Balibo, have been much agonised over since.This year I have had the opportunity to visit the Australian peace monitoring group in Bougainville, to observe the Indonesian elections in Kupang in West Timor and, most recently, to visit Australia's northern defence bases in the Northern Territory and Queensland which are providing military and logistic support to the International Force in East Timor. Each of those experiences is relevant to East Timor and INTERFET and has helped inform my response to this motion.The Labor Party are seeking to make this motion a political debate. We need to focus on what the government has done to end the violence in East Timor. In 1996, Defence Minister Ian McLachlan first began to promote a greater role for the Australian Defence Force in the region. He moved away from a sole focus on the defence of Australia. In December 1998, the Prime Minister wrote to President Habibie suggesting the notion of a period of autonomy for East Timor followed by an act of self-determination. This would have been similar to the Matignon Accord of New Caledonia, which has maintained peace there since 1988. In March this year, Defence Minister John Moore had the foresight to put a second brigade on 28 days readiness. These decisions prepared us for the rapid response we were able to effect after the ballot.1999 has seen increased intimidation and violence in East Timor initiated by the militias. The 21 April agreement between the pro-integrationist and pro-independence forces has had no impact. General Wiranto's urging to the military not to take sides has had no impact. Calls to have peacekeeping forces on the ground prior to the 30 August ballot are only a simplistic solution to what is a complex problem. Without the agreement of Indonesia, how could those forces have entered Indonesia? Without agreement from Indonesia, the only sanction available was invasion or intervention under chapter VII of the United Nations charter. So the ALP calls for peacekeeping were impractical when (1) there was no truce or peace to keep and (2) there was no agreement from the host country.In talks with the Australian Prime Minister in Bali on 27 April, it was made clear by President Habibie that Indonesia would not accept peacekeeping troops in East Timor. Before the signing of the agreement on 5 May by Portugal, Indonesia and the United Nations, Indonesia made it clear that it would not accept an external force which would have direct responsibility for security in Indonesia. The ALP argues that they either would have had peacekeepers in East Timor or would have postponed the ballot. Give me a break. Both required intervening in the affairs of Indonesia. I ask Labor members to name one time when they were able to influence Indonesian domestic policy, when they are actually able to influence Indonesia in its domestic affairs.The violence which was instigated by the militia after 20 August horrified most Australians and has led to great suffering and dislocation in East Timor. West Timor has been swamped by refugees. My office received a lot of emails, phone calls and mail on this issue. Most wanted Australia to do something about the violence in East Timor. While the hindsight of the opposition is useful, the government has acted quickly to lead an international force and obtain a United Nations Security Council resolution and Indonesia's agreement to allow a peacekeeping force. To have INTERFET in Dili three weeks after the 30 August ballot is a demonstration of how fast the government acted once the atrocities were committed in East Timor. Compare this with 1994 when the Security Council advised that 35,000 troops were needed to defer attacks on safe areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Member states sent 7,500 troops and they took a year to provide them. In Rwanda, with evidence of genocide, the United Nations decided that 5,500 peacekeepers were urgently needed. It took six months for member states to provide the troops. The work of the Prime Minister at APEC and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in New York was influential in creating the momentum which saw Indonesia agree to a peacekeeping force and in getting Security Council resolution 1264 to allow for it in international law.Today the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech which was close to an hour in length. He talked a little about his record as Minister for Defence and what he would have done if he were still Minister for Defence. We need to examine his record in responding to regional calls for help. During the coup in Fiji in 1987, what did he do? During the coup in Fiji in 1988, what did he do? When Prime Minister Lini of Vanuatu requested Australian assistance to maintain law and order in Vanuatu, what did he do? What did he do about Bougainville? The secessionist war in Bougainville began in 1988. When we came into government in 1996 it was still going. It was under the coalition government that we actually saw peace in Bougainville. When the Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Defence, Australia could not even evacuate Australian citizens. The great defence minister of the Labor Party was unable to assist in low level regional conflicts.The end of the Cold War and the successful use of chapter VII enforcement by a US-led international force in the Gulf War led to a widespread optimism that the collective security ideal of the United Nations would be realised this decade. There were 15 peacekeeping operations from 1990 to 1993 compared with 17 for the previous 45 years. Up till 1991 the Gulf War, the Korean War and the Congo were the only examples of chapter VII authorised international forces, and Security Council resolution 1264 is a chapter VII authorised resolution. However, they were inter-state conflicts. Since 1991 the United Nations has had to confront the difficulties of state collapse and intra-state conflict. The failure of peacekeeping missions in Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia has dampened the initial optimism of the early nineties, and we should learn these lessons. The veto of the permanent members of the Security Council prevented the Security Council from acting as it was intended during the Cold War. From 1945 to 1990, the veto was used 193 times. Since 1990, the veto has been used only on six substantive issues. Since 1991 we have seen chapter VII enforcements in Bosnia and Somalia in 1992, Rwanda and Haiti in 1994, Zaire in 1996 and Albania 1997.INTERFET and the Australian government will need to be aware of the dangers of mission creep. The former Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, David Malone, described mission creep in this way in an article in Security Dialogue, 1997:Piecemeal addition of enforcement duties to Peacekeeping operations ill-equipped for them was a major source of difficulties in Bosnia and the proximate cause of the United Nations' inability to continue functioning in Somalia after 1993.Improvising can distort original mandates. For example, the creation of safe areas in Bosnia could not be backed up by the United Nations and undermined the UN's credibility in that operation.INTERFET must also have faultless command and control arrangements. This has been a serious weak point in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the past. In the 10 years since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations and nations like Australia have learned the lessons of the failures of Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia. Peacekeeping needs to have several important components: (1) a peace to keep or peace enforcement powers; (2) a clear mandate and a clear objective; and (3) an exit strategy which should not be widely advertised. The Security Council resolution authorises INTERFET under chapter VII of the UN Charter to take all necessary measures to fulfil their mandate. This avoids the problems of Bosnia where lightly armed truce monitors from Croatia were transferred to a completely different arena in Bosnia.It is also important that INTERFET has a clear objective. The resolution authorises INTERFET to restore peace and security, to protect and support UNAMET and to facilitate humanitarian assistance where possible. It is important that INTERFET and its United Nations successor have a clearly defined exit strategy. The exit strategy should be event linked rather than date linked and should not be widely advertised, otherwise this would encourage violent groups to wait until the international force leaves.In peacekeeping what seems to work is coalitions of the willing—international but not UN forces—backed up by Security Council resolutions. It succeeded in Haiti, it had some success in Bosnia with the NATO strikes which led to the Dayton accords, and it was useful in Albania. In Somalia it worked until the international force was replaced by a UN force with faulty command and control and a lack of cohesion.In July the member for Wannon and I met with Major General Peter Cosgrove. I have a lot of faith in his appointment as Commander of INTERFET. I wish INTERFET well. I wish the soldiers serving with INTERFET well. I wish the people of East Timor well.20:29:0010102Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—I want to speak from perhaps a slightly different angle to that of many of my predecessors in this debate. I want initially to remind everyone in this House that our defence and foreign policy should be informed by our desire to maximise the protection of lives and of decent human values and to defend human rights. If we had remembered that in the last 25 years, we might not be where we are today.What I would like to address particularly are the immediate effects of the events in East Timor on the people of East Timor. We must not in this debate forget their needs. I know that our forces are going in there to restore the peace, but as well as the short-term effects there will be some very long-term deleterious effects on the people of East Timor which will require our attention and our support. We have already seen a great many people murdered. There have been many deaths; we do not know how many. There have been severe injuries, some of which will result in permanent disability. No doubt there have been rapes: rapes always take place in these circumstances. Of course there is the possibility that torture has taken place, certainly a form of psychological torture from the fear of being raped or murdered.There has been the displacement of a great many people. In fact, it is very hard to imagine that anyone in East Timor has not been forced to move during the last few weeks, and those who have not moved voluntarily have been forced to move from their abode. Not only does all this produce the pain of seeing those close to you die and suffer injury but the grief and the loss must be tangible.It was very touching to see this evening on the news bulletins the East Timorese welcoming our soldiers. But it touched my heart because I knew that in many respects they must be suffering very deeply too. They were pleased, but for a long time they will wear the effects of what has gone on in the last few weeks. There will be very long-term effects, some of which we are already seeing, particularly with the people in West Timor but also amongst the East Timorese who remained—the effects of food shortages and of malnutrition that are common to such forced removals and to refugees; the long-term consequences of torture and of trauma; and the long-term disability of people who have been injured.Of course in most of these conflicts it is the children who suffer the most, and I think we would do well to remember that. In most of these conflicts, whether they be the result of war or of civil strife, more children die as a result of malnutrition and disease than of the violence itself. Australia and its citizens should be very aware of that.What we need to do, as well as enforcing the peace now and in the longer term, is to ensure with others, not alone, appropriate treatment for the injuries that have been sustained—the physical hurts—and there will be many. We need to provide primary health care to prevent the spread of disease particularly in the refugee camps. We will need to assist in the provision of food, both in quantity and in variety. We will need to improve sanitation and the water supply because we know that the infrastructure has been destroyed and that in the camps in many cases it is non-existent.We will need to provide counselling and treatment for those people who have suffered trauma and in some cases perhaps even torture. That is a long haul for the rehabilitation that is required. And we need to assist with reconciliation so that we do not see a repeat of these events in 20 or 40 years. Sadly, a lot of the events that we are seeing in Europe—in Bosnia and in Kosovo—are the result of a long history of retribution. We certainly do not want to see that re-emerge in East Timor.We and the international community must assist with rebuilding the infrastructure. But I want all Australians to be particularly alert to the effects on children, the next generation, of that organised violence that we have seen, of the political oppression that they have witnessed and of the armed conflict that they have witnessed and have been victims of too. I want us to be aware of the intensity of the violence that they have experienced and that they will have seen what seemed to be totally irrational behaviour played out before their eyes. They will have seen, especially in the case of East Timor, civilians as targets. They will have seen honoured nuns, priests and medical workers killed. In most cases their families and communities are totally destroyed. This is not what we expect of our childhood.Despite the efforts of relief and humanitarian agencies, the human cost of the forced migration that we have seen is going to be very high. In East Timor, as is generally the case with such crises, the local resources are depleted or non-existent, and they are no better in West Timor. It is going to be very difficult to assist them.The civil strife and mayhem that we are seeing, apart from the many horrors of deaths and injuries, will produce secondary effects, as I have described—the decreased availability of food, environmental damage and the displacement of the population. As I indicated, this often leads to a higher death toll than the initial bloodbath, and we need to be very vigilant about this. We have seen the deliberate destruction of infrastructure and that will make rebuilding and short-term survival extremely difficult.Malnutrition, we understand, is already a problem. Those who have been forced to flee or who have been forcibly removed are particularly at risk. I think we are very well aware of the fact that in some cases—and probably here as well, although the intelligence is not good—access to food is almost certainly used as a weapon against citizens as they flee. A lot of them have ended up in camps outside East Timor. Those camps, from the images that we have seen and from all reports, are overcrowded. This is a poor community at the best of times. There is poor or no sanitation, very little in the way of shelter and very few health services, and those conditions are going to hamper the effective and equitable distribution of food as well, even if it comes through. The relief supplies will not get through in the way that they should, so obviously we need to convince the Indonesians to change the lines of supply.Those circumstances also promote the transmission of communicable diseases in those densely populated camps with inadequate water and sanitation. They can contribute to the rapid spread of disease. As I have indicated, there are direct and obvious effects of the movement of such a large segment of the population—severe undernutrition and death, usually from the communicable diseases. Let me just remind the House of the sorts of diseases that, unless we are exceedingly careful, are likely to develop: malaria; measles, which can wipe out whole communities; respiratory infections; infections generally; and diarrhoea and TB. It is also worth remembering that most at risk are the elderly, women—particularly pregnant women—and young children.I also remind members of the House that the violence associated with forced migration produces additional effects, particularly fear and uncertainty. A lot of these children will find it very hard to ever trust anybody again. Some of these factors I have mentioned produce debilitating long-term effects, particularly malnutrition, stunted growth, a slow- down and retardation of intellectual development and greater susceptibility to disease in the long-term. We have to be conscious of these consequences as we provide aid and encourage others to do so. Of course, there is a very strong interaction between malnutrition and infection in children.We also need to remember that being a refugee is a condition of extreme stress, even if they have adequate food. It is associated, for many of them, with traumatic experiences of the most vivid and horrific kind. For young people, whether they are little children or adolescents, there are prolonged effects and there is a wealth of evidence, sadly, that this is so. A lot of these young people and children will have been forced to leave their parents—indeed, their parents may be dead. They have been separated from their families. They will be experiencing a great deal of worry, regret and grief.They will be worried too about their own deaths, particularly in the case of the people who are now in West Timor, and about the possibility of injury or separation, if they have not yet been separated. In the discipline from which I came into politics, the long-term psychological traumas that result from the sorts of experiences that these children have had have the pretty awful clinical name of post-traumatic stress disorder. Without medical assistance, the headaches, the joint and muscle pain, and the sense of loss will continue. They will not have any relief from the nightmare.I conclude by saying I am delighted that we have in some sense made the first step, but that is all it is. I remind members of the House that East Timor, sadly, is not the only place on the globe where this sort of thing is happening. Over the last decade, the child victims of war and violent conflict numbered in these following categories—this is from a register in 1996—two million killed; 405 million disabled; 12 million homeless; one million orphaned or separated from their families; and 10 million severely traumatised. I think they are very important lessons for this parliament to heed.20:40:0010104St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise tonight in support of the motion before the House, moved by the Prime Minister, on East Timor. The current plight of the people of East Timor is an issue that holds great importance for the people of New England and, as such, is an issue that demands the greatest attention in this House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion on East Timor at this time. I have received letters, emails, telephone calls and personal visits numbering well into the hundreds over the past three weeks from the people in my electorate of New England. The messages come from ordinary people—teachers, farmers, university students, mums and dads, schoolchildren and retirees; people from all sorts of backgrounds—united by their deep concern for the East Timorese people. It is a deep concern aroused by East Timor's struggle to claim independence from a vastly more powerful and populous nation, also a neighbouring nation and a valuable trading partner and friend of Australia.It has been encouraging for me to see that so many Australians take an interest in the affairs of our neighbouring nations. It demonstrates that the Australian spirit is still well and truly alive and kicking when it comes to helping those in need. Together with the people of New England, I welcome the decision of the Prime Minister to commit an initial force of 2,500 Australian defence personnel to take part, as the leading nation, in a multinational peacekeeping force in East Timor. It is a decision that commits Australian people to help restore the peace, safety and stability in that country.It was a difficult decision to make, and I appreciate the implications and the enormous responsibilities that come with making it, but it is the correct decision under the circumstances. Referring to our involvement in the peacekeeping force, our nation's largest military involvement for more than 30 years, the Prime Minister said in his address to the nation on Sunday night:We decided to do it, not only because it was right but also because it was in our national interest do so.Continued instability of the kind we have so recently witnessed, in a territory so close to Australia could have serious consequences for us in the longer run.I agree with him and, again, I welcome the decision that has been made and the subsequent landing of the first 1,000 Australian troops in East Timor yesterday. Australia has copped plenty of internal criticism over past years, and particularly in recent times, for a perceived insignificance and lack of strength on the world stage. I put it to the House that the willingness, eagerness and leadership displayed by the Prime Minister and the Australian government in lobbying for, establishing and leading a multinational peace keeping force to East Timor tells a different story.We have demonstrated that we as a government and a nation are anything but weak and insignificant. This government's actions demonstrate that we are a strong nation with strong values, strong leadership and a strong future. This government has shown that Australia is a nation that has come of age. We now compete favourably on a tough world market, building and maintaining strong relationships with other countries. However, we have shown through the decision to lobby for and lead the peacekeeping force in East Timor that we will not tolerate the deprivation of rights of innocent people taking place on our doorstep.The current situation in East Timor is an important reminder to us all that the veneer of civilisation is only skin deep and that human beings can still inflict horrendous injury and misery on other human beings. It is a reminder for us not to become lost in our own troubles and woes and forget that what we have in this nation is a vibrant democracy that should be defended with all the vigour we can muster.Australia needs a strong defence force, one that is highly trained and flexible enough to be able to carry out operations in a cooperative way with defence personnel from many different countries. One only has to look at the make-up of this United Nations force, with firm commitments from Thailand, New Zealand, the United States, Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Brazil and the United Kingdom and the many other countries that have expressed a willingness to contribute.I believe that it is of paramount importance to continue, as Australia has, to nurture relationships with all the different countries of our region. There is a perhaps lesser known saying that goes: misunderstandings seldom occur between friends. We have strong and vigorous relationships and friendships with many countries around the world, including the United States of America. Even throughout the trials of the past weeks, we maintain a strong relationship with our neighbours in Indonesia. I believe that this is the result of strong leadership and relationships built on mutual respect. The national media yesterday was talking about a wave of anti-Australian sentiment washing over Indonesia as our Australian forces secure the capital of East Timor, Dili. It is a mission that has taken place without any initial resistance and with some level of cooperation from both the militia and other forces.Imagine the sentiment that would have been held by the Indonesian people towards Australians if, as many suggested, we had simply sent our forces into East Timor two weeks ago without being part of a multinational United Nations sanctioned peacekeeping force. Again, leadership comes to the fore. To have sent our forces into East Timor uninvited and without the support and cooperation of the United Nations and the express invitation of the Indonesian government could have been catastrophic. This kind of action could well have been interpreted as nothing less than an invasion of an Indonesian province, an act of war.Instead of rushing in, this government took the correct steps, lobbying the United Nations, the Indonesian government and the rest of the world to get behind the concept of an Australian-led, United Nations sanctioned, multinational peacekeeping force to restore peace and stability in East Timor. Australia took the initiative. Australia displayed strong leadership. The result is that East Timor can now have a chance to progress to true and peaceful independence. That is a result that has come without the added burden of a broken relationship with one of our close neighbours, friends and trading partners.In closing, I take this opportunity to wish all those members of our armed forces who are travelling to, or who are already in, East Timor as a part of the peacekeeping force godspeed. I know that the people of the New England join with me in wishing them all a safe mission and a safe return to their families in Australia as soon as the task ahead is done. Finally, I remind the House that none of this would have been necessary had Indonesia met its international obligations in East Timor.20:50:0010106Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased tonight to participate in this debate, unfortunate though it is, and to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. In particular, I support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for foreign affairs. Whilst we can be proud of our troops who are today in East Timor and of the others who will be going to East Timor, Australia has very little, in my view, to be proud about regarding our performance on the East Timor issue over the last two and a half decades. The invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1975, the de jure recognition of East Timor as a province of Indonesia a few years after that and our foreign policy performance in the decades after 1975 in a bipartisan way leave much for us to regret.In order to move forward into the future, you must have an honest appraisal of the past. Both the current government and the Australian Labor Party have to acknowledge that mistakes were made. That is not to blame individuals for those mistakes—we all make judgments as politicians based upon the way we see history at the time—but it does not help to pretend that errors of judgment have not been made. For those people who say that we could have not had a ballot for an independent East Timor at any stage, the fact is that 200,000 people have perished since 1975 in East Timor. It has been a land characterised by intimidation, by fear and by occupation by the Indonesian military, police and paramilitary forces since then.In Australia this has been an issue for many community organisations and, in particular, for people who are involved in the Catholic Church. They have played a very critical role, and I pay tribute to those people who have held the faith in East Timor over the last 24 years. Anyone who hears Sister Susan Connelly speak on this issue cannot but be impressed.In recent times there has been a change. I want to pay tribute to Laurie Brereton, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, for presiding over the change in the Australian Labor Party's policy. The Labor Party changed its policy at the national conference in January 1998. Since then Laurie Brereton has consistently raised his concerns about what was occurring and could occur in East Timor. In spite of that, the government has been reluctantly dragged forward by the forces of history. At all stages, instead of being ahead of the process, it has been behind.The government cannot say that it did not know what was going on. There is the tragedy of the Liquica massacre on 6 April, when at leat 58 people were killed in that town. I will quote from advice given to the Australian government by the Defence Intelligence Organisation on 4 March, which said:. . . the military will continue to support intimidation and violence or at least won't prevent it.They concluded:Further violence is certain and Dili will be a focus.What was the response of the government to this? The Prime Minister flew to Bali and, after a meeting with the Indonesian government representatives, made a statement on 28 April that he was confident that security could be left in the hands of the Indonesia forces with regard to the ballot, which was then scheduled for early August but was delayed by a fortnight.It is not being smart in hindsight to say that at that time the Australian Labor Party pointed out the danger that was inherent in this approach. I gave a speech on behalf of Laurie Brereton to the Australian Institute for International Affairs on 29 June 1999. I will read some of the comments that I made to the institute in June. On behalf of Laurie Brereton I said:From the beginning of this year, the situation on the ground deteriorated rapidly as the pro-integrationist militias, armed and orchestrated by the Indonesian military, set about killing and terrorising the civilian population. We quickly reached the conclusion that a fully-fledged UN peacekeeping force would be required to stabilise the situation, verify an agreed process of disarmament and guarantee an environment free from violence and intimidation. We repeatedly called on the Howard Government to press Jakarta to disarm the pro-integrationist militias and to accept a UN Peacekeeping mission to verify that disarmament.The Howard Government declined to take up our calls. Rather than press Indonesia to accept peacekeepers, they told the international community that any consideration of peacekeeping in East Timor was completely premature. One of the key reasons a fully-fledged UN peacekeeping force is not deployed in East Timor today—that is, in June—is the fact that the Howard Government has persistently argued against such a course of action. More than any other country, Australia worked to take pressure off Jakarta.I went on to say:Australia's refusal to support, let alone campaign for peacekeepers set the scene for the very late deployment of a minimal, unarmed civilian UN presence to conduct the ballot with security remaining in the hands of the Indonesian military and police—a scheme fraught with danger and difficulty. The sad reality is that in spite of all that has happened, in spite of all the changes taking place in Indonesia, the Howard Government is still working with the mindset of past policy which defined good relations with Indonesia in terms of what Jakarta wanted, and within that consistently sought to marginalise the East Timor issue.Further on I said:At present it is a reality of continuing violence and intimidation and the inadequate international support, especially Australian Government support, for the measures required to guarantee a peaceful, free and fair ballot.I concluded by saying:They haven't moved all that far, but at least in recent weeks the Government did finally acknowledge, without its previous equivocation, the Indonesian military's complicity in pro-integrationist violence. Time will tell whether the Howard Government will move further. One hopes that they will not be too late.That was on 29 June 1999. We are moving too late. That is not to suggest a unilateral action by the Australian military; it is to suggest that, had we played an appropriate diplomatic role in lobbying the United States government in particular but also Jakarta and the United Nations, we would not have allowed people to participate in a democratic ballot—having told them that the United Nations would stay and provide protection as a result of their exercising their democratic right—and then allowed a situation to develop whereby an unknown number of people were murdered and a policy of slashing, burning and destroying the infrastructure in East Timor was carried out. I sincerely hope that our forces come back safely, each and every one of them, and I wish them well. (Time expired)21:00:0010108Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Like all other members, it is with a very heavy heart that I address the House today on this important motion. I share the grief of 18 million Australians at the plight of 700,000 people of East Timor. I am saddened by what has happened. All of us have been appalled at the unfolding tragedy in recent weeks.One of the interesting facets of Australia's international diplomacy over the last 25 years or so has been the growing and important relationship between this country and the Republic of Indonesia. As one of many Australian parliamentarians privileged to visit Indonesia, both as part of an official delegation and privately, I have gained a very great degree of understanding of the economic and social problems that have confronted this emerging nation over the past 50 years. We tend today to focus very much on what is happening without sufficient reference to events of the past.Upon its formation, the aim of the fledgling Indonesian republic was unity: one country, one nation, one language—Indonesia. Of course when Indonesia became independent that part of Timor occupied by the Dutch became part of the new Indonesian republic. The Portuguese had arrived in East Timor as long ago as the early 16th century. There was conflict for some time with the Dutch, but there were agreements in 1859 and 1913 which gave Portugal control of East Timor and gave the Netherlands control of West Timor. The Dutch left but the Portuguese stayed on until their revolution in 1974, and then we all know the history of what happened. The Portuguese withdrew, there was a brief civil war, and Indonesia was concerned that a mini-Cuba would be created on its doorstep. Unfortunately, Indonesia then moved to take over East Timor. From their perspective, the Indonesians might say that the integration of East Timor was consistent with the one country, one nation, one language policy adopted throughout the archipelago.In 1994 I was privileged to be a member of the delegation to the ASEAN interparlia mentary organisation AIPO conference, and we also had bilateral visits to Singapore and Indonesia. As part of our visit to Indonesia, we were privileged to visit East Timor. At the time, I considered that it was entirely inappropriate for the delegation to go to East Timor as I felt that it was an infringement on Indonesia's sovereignty; in fact I came very close to withdrawing from that delegation. After 24 hours in Dili, however, I realised that the situation was not right. I could see that something was severely wrong and that the 700,000 people of East Timor had no wish to be part of Indonesia. They had a different culture, they had a different religion, and they had a different history.Australia, as the Prime Minister said, owes a very great debt to the East Timorese, and I am particularly pleased that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have taken a leading role in ensuring that the people of East Timor were given the opportunity to cast their votes for either integration with Indonesia or independence. Close to 80 per cent—almost eight in 10—of East Timorese chose not to be part of Indonesia, and this country is playing its role as part of the United Nations force to ensure that the results of the ballot are implemented and that the East Timorese achieve their national destiny.We will have up to 4,500 young Australians deployed in East Timor. This is a massive contribution by this government and an enormous commitment by the Australian people. Indeed, it is the biggest deployment abroad since the Vietnam War. These young Australians are prepared to defend democracy, which we enjoy and respect in Australia. I hope the mission is completed quickly and without casualties, but we have to accept that our task is a big one and we must be prepared to accept the mantle.As I said, the efforts of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and also the Minister for Defence in overturning 24 years of bipartisan appeasement towards Indonesia's claims to sovereignty over East Timor need to be appreciated. I believe that history will record that this Prime Minister and this government have been the government and the leader prepared to stand up for what is right. Because of the preparedness of the Minister for Defence, we were able to get our troops on the ground in Dili very quickly. I am greatly saddened that some members opposite have chosen to turn this into a cheap and shoddy party political debate.Opposition members interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—All of us should be prepared to back our soldiers, and I am pleased that the opposition is indeed supporting the motion. But it is tragic and quite inaccurate for some members opposite to suggest that there was any possibility that there could have been an international force on the ground in East Timor prior to the present time. The Prime Minister has indicated that the Indonesian government would not, under any circumstances, have been prepared to tolerate such a deployment, and, had the international community insisted, the ballot could well have been abandoned and the aspirations of the people of East Timor for independence would have been unmet. The government has proven that Australia is a regional leader. We have taken the initiative. We have a leading commander in Major General Peter Cosgrove, and I am particularly pleased—as are people in the electorate of Fisher—that the operation has been so successful so far.There are many young people from the Sunshine Coast in East Timor. Amongst them are Charlie Adams, Carlton Sargeant and Matt Stewart, whose mother Vicki I met last week. Ms Stewart spoke of the pride and faith she has in the professionalism of Australian troops.Australia has a real interest in seeing a maintenance of stability and peace in the region. A stable region means a peaceful Australia. We have always been proactive with respect to humanitarian issues, particularly those on our doorstep. We will be providing a very great financial contribution to the success of East Timor. Our government has been keen to restore stability and peace to East Timor and we wish to hand over to the United Nations transitional authority as soon as possible. Australia does respect Indonesia's territorial integrity and does not want to see a break-up of the archipelago in other re spects. Our relationship is very important for regional security, and we certainly support this.I also want to place on the record my belief that President Habibie ought to be internationally congratulated for today in the Indonesian parliament urging his country to accept the East Timorese vote for independence. He also recommended that the National Assembly ratify the vote. President Habibie said that his intention was to settle the East Timor issue and the crisis there so that Indonesia could enter the new millennium free from international pressure. I think that is particularly important.Indonesia is a close and important neighbour with many shared security interests. Its size and population mean that it will continue to have a significant regional role in the future. It remains in Australia's best interests for this relationship to be a good one. Indonesia has now given the East Timorese the right to choose their future path as an independent and free democracy, and they have spoken unambiguously. For that end to be reached, Australia is needed to help ensure a safe transition.On behalf of the people in the electorate of Fisher—and I believe on behalf of all of the people of Australia—I wish members of the Australian contingent and those from other countries every success. We hope that their mission is free of casualties and we also hope that they return to our country safely. I commend the resolution to the House.21:10:0010109Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—With all members of the House, I join in support of the resolution moved by the Prime Minister and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. I want at the outset, though, to express my concern that discussion on an issue of this importance should be truncated in the parliament. The fact that the government has placed time limits on speakers on this very important issue is most regrettable. This is, as many speakers have commented, the largest deployment of Australian armed forces abroad since the Second World War, and the parliament has been denied the opportunity for members to speak for the customary length of time. That is a matter for some regret.At the outset I would like to place on the record my endorsement of, support for and congratulations to Major General Peter Cosgrove on his appointment to head the international force. It has been my pleasure for most of my time in this parliament to be associated with the Australian Defence Force and in that role to meet and work with many very fine military personnel. I have no hesitation in saying that General Cosgrove is one of the finest I have had the pleasure to work with and observe. As he is commander of the joint deployable headquarters in my electorate, I have had the opportunity to bump into him on occasion. I think the selection of a very fine commander such as he will be a great asset to the force. I offer my wholehearted endorsement of his appointment and congratulations to him.All Australians were repulsed to watch and witness on television on a nightly basis the attacks on innocent East Timorese. To see graphic footage of innocent civilians—women and children—being clubbed to death or slashed with machetes in the street without any means of defending themselves was a horror that all Australians demanded a response to. It is appropriate that the government and the nation have responded in the way they have.It is not surprising that in times of tragedy like this we tend to focus on the events after the tragedy; that is, we tend to focus on what we should do to respond to the tragedy. That is a normal and natural reaction. In this parliament, though, we have an obligation to look further than that—not to take simply the superficial analysis but to look more deeply at what is occurring. It reminds me of the advice that was given to teachers in my former profession, which was that, when a child breaks their arm in the playground, invariably teachers always do the right thing to fix up the child after the arm is broken, but the critical question is: what did you do beforehand to make sure the playground was safe and the kid did not break his arm in the first place? It is that area of scrutiny that this parliament has an obligation to delve into. It is important to have a look at the circum stances that led to the tragedy as well as those events that followed the tragedy.Last August, in my capacity at that time as shadow minister for defence, I visited Jakarta with Laurie Brereton, the shadow foreign affairs spokesperson. We met with President Habibie, defence minister Wiranto, foreign minister Alatas and a range of other government, community and opposition figures. There were a number of things that struck me as a result of that visit. One was that I believed—and still do believe—that President Habibie and the bulk of his government were very keen to see an election held in which the people of East Timor could decide for themselves their future fate. It was also clear that Indonesia was going through a process of democratisation itself at that time and still is. In fact, I think one of the tragic events of recent days is that the democratic movement in Indonesia has probably suffered significant setbacks as a result of what has transpired.It also became clear as a result of our visit that, if there was going to be an act of free determination by the people of East Timor, it would not occur unless there were United Nations troops on the ground. I made it plain at that time and subsequently as shadow minister for defence—and Laurie Brereton has certainly done so—that our view on this side of the House was that the ballot for freedom in East Timor should occur under the protection and security of United Nations peacekeeping troops. That was a view I held and formed last year. It was a view I expressed in my capacity at the time as shadow minister for defence. In fact, at the time I made the observation that you would need a minium of 3,000 to 5,000 armed United Nations troops if you wanted to conduct a fair and safe ballot. If I made a mistake it was that you would probably need more than the 5,000 I suggested.It was a reasonably foreseeable problem that a free and safe ballot could not be held—that was the view that we as the opposition formed last year. It was a view the government had had made known to it by a range of people. If it did not want to take the advice of the Labor Party on that, it could have accepted the views of the people of East Timor or the views of its own security assessment—it did none of those things. It decided to press ahead with a timetable ignoring all that advice. Having decided not to put in place what I think were the required minimum standards, that is, a UN peacekeeping force, the amazing thing that has transpired is that we now know the government also did not put in place contingency plans.Let me make an observation about the question of peacekeepers. Many government speakers and the Prime Minister have said that a UN peacekeeping force was not possible because the Indonesians would not accept it. The Indonesians made it plain they would not accept a UN peacekeeping force prior to the ballot. The Indonesians made it plain they would not accept a UN peacekeeping force after the ballot. In the days that followed the ballot, and in the mayhem and slaughter that followed, the Indonesian government's view was identical then to what it was six months ago. But, because of the enormity of the tragedy that we watched every night, finally the government moved to do the things that it should have been doing six months before: that is, mobilise international opinion.One of the great tragedies, which is now public, is that six months ago when other countries in the world proposed that we should have UN peacekeepers, our government's advice and diplomatic efforts were to stop them. We actually sent senior Foreign Affairs people to Portugal to talk Portugal out of its support for UN peacekeepers. We talked down the United States which wanted to look at the prospect of joint deployments. This government actively worked against the deployment of UN peacekeepers. It failed to pick up the baton and run with it—doing nothing would have been better than doing what it did; doing nothing would not have been as harmful. Having failed that, what I find absolutely unforgivable is that the government did not then put in place contingency plans for foreseeable likely outcomes. Blind Freddy knew that, if you were running a list of three or four likely outcomes after a ballot in East Timor, one of the scenarios which you would have to plan for is violence and bloodshed. And, indeed, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said publicly that was something that they contemplated, but there was no contingency plan.All of that frantic phone-calling and those meetings at APEC went on—all of that frantic crisis management activity was needed because there was actually no planned foreign policy and no planned national security policy in relation to East Timor. Had there been, then three months before the ballot in East Timor we would have had a contingency plan in which a range of key countries would have joined with Australia with known commitments and requirements in the event of certain things occurring. That had been normal practice in a range of similar operations that the Australian Defence Force had been involved in elsewhere. It would have been standard planning. The fact that it did not occur is a matter for enormous regret.In concluding, I want to quickly move to an important issue, which is the question of a rotation force. We have 4,500 troops we are going to commit. That is good and I support that. The government now has to come to grips with what we will do in six months. In six months, we do not have the capability to rotate that force. We do not have any more combat ready soldiers to send. The government needs now to look at the prospect of calling out the reserves. As the Leader of the Opposition said, had we maintained the Ready Reserve, we would actually have an option. This government abolished it. We now have a major problem. That crisis planning should not be revisited on us in six months—we need to plan now for what we will require in six months.The final thing that I want to get on the record is that I do, with all of my heart, wish our troops and the other nations' troops in East Timor a safe commitment, a safe journey and a speedy return home. (Time expired)21:20:0010111Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I am very pleased and honoured to be able to add my comments to the many that have preceded mine in this chamber today on the happenings in East Timor.Like most Australians, I have watched anxiously over the last few months as the people of East Timor moved closer to a ballot to decide whether or not they would finally gain their independence. This ballot, agreed to on 5 May, was a tripartite agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the UN. It is a tribute to the East Timorese people that there was such a high turnout at the ballot held on 30 August—about 98.5 per cent of people who were eligible to vote turned out on that day to record their vote—a vote which saw almost 80 per cent in favour of independence. This ballot was conducted fortunately with very little violence or few incidents on the day and, as I have just said, had an almost unbelievably high voter turnout.It was the hope of all Australians that the wishes of the East Timorese people to become an independent nation would be fulfilled. It has been with horror and distress that the Australian people have watched the violence and the human tragedy that has unfolded in East Timor since that decisive vote on 30 August. Visions have come straight into our lounge rooms in our comfortable Australian homes of people running down the street, and we saw the unfortunate man who tripped and was attacked with machetes and lost his life. I think the images that affected me most were the ones filmed under the night-scope of the people who were so desperate to get to the safety of the UN compound that they climbed the walls and the razor wire. They even threw the children over the razor wire in an attempt to send them to safety. That certainly had an effect on me. Obviously it had an effect on all Australians who saw it. My electorate office, like those of most members, has been inundated with emails, faxes and letters from concerned Australians, appealing to the government to do something to assist the East Timorese people, most of them recognising the difficulty and the sensitivity of the whole situation.I understand the urgency and the need to assist the 200,000 or 300,000 East Timorese who have been displaced by the human rights violations, the violence and the civil unrest in East Timor. I am proud to say that Australia acted quickly to engage the international community on this issue. Our efforts have resulted in the deployment of the multinational peacekeeping force in East Timor in what I understand is world record time. That is due very much to the efforts of our Prime Minister, Mr Howard, who spoke repeatedly to Mr Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, and to many other world leaders, particularly at the APEC meeting held in New Zealand recently. Last week in New York our foreign minister, Mr Alexander Downer, managed to secure the United Nations Security Council resolution—a very strong resolution which has enabled Australia to lead that multinational peacekeeping force into East Timor. Already there have been firm commitments made by many countries, such as Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the United States and the United Kingdom, to join this peacekeeping force.In the past two days we have seen the deployment of the first of the UN forces into East Timor as part of Operation Stabilise. By the end of this week we hope to have around 3,000 troops on the ground in East Timor. Many members here tonight—and, I am sure, most Australians—would have been heartened by the images that were beamed into our offices and into homes throughout Australia by the TV channels of the reception that those troops are receiving in East Timor, particularly the reception on the wharves when the high-speed catamaran arrived. The East Timorese people are starting to feel a bit more relaxed and a little safer now that some of those peacekeeping forces are on the ground. They actually cheered and clapped when they welcomed the Australians and the other UN forces that arrived in East Timor today.It is particularly gratifying that so many countries from Asia have been prepared to contribute forces. I am pleased that the commander of those forces is Australian, Major General Peter Cosgrove, and that Australia will gradually increase its contribution to this force so that we will have approximately 4,500 military personnel in East Timor, probably by the end of next week. That is the largest contingent of armed service men and women to leave Australia since Vietnam. I am immensely proud, as an Australian, of these young men and women from our armed forces when I see the way they have prepared and trained for this mission. It is an inspiration for all of us. As the Prime Minister said at the Robertson barracks in Darwin to the troops before they departed for Dili, they are part of an Australian tradition of young men and women who are prepared to stand up for what is right.I would like to convey my personal good wishes and thoughts, and the good wishes and thoughts of every resident in my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast of New South Wales, to the men and women who are in Dili at the moment and the men and women who will go to Dili shortly. I know that each and every one of us wishes them a safe journey, a successful mission, and hopes that they will return home safely to their friends, family and loved ones as quickly as possible. Each and every one of those men and women who have gone to East Timor are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and family to all of us in Australia. There are many families in Australia that are concerned for their welfare and eagerly seek their safe return to Australia as quickly as possible. The message that has echoed loud and clear out of this parliament today is that all Australians do genuinely support these men and women. They will not forget the efforts they are putting into what we believe is right, to support East Timor, and that the government will support them in every way that it can to ensure that they have the facilities and the services they need. The Prime Minister has given a commitment to look after their families as well, and that is very important.I deal regularly with veterans from the Vietnam War. Many of those veterans are still suffering from the lack of recognition that existed at that time. I believe that was a terrible event and it had enormous negative effects on many of those veterans. I know that Australians will never let that happen again. Certainly, in this case they are fully supportive of what our forces are doing in East Timor. They are very proud of them and know that what they are doing is right.Finally, I would like to offer my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister, Mr Alexander Downer, John Moore and Philip Ruddock on the efforts they have made on this issue. It has highlighted, in many ways, the new role that Australia plays on the world stage and they should be commended for their efforts.21:30:0010113Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—As one who has had a long emotional link with East Timor beginning with the loss of a friend and colleague in Balibo in October 1975, I strongly endorse this motion. But there are many hundreds of thousands who have a far greater emotional stake in East Timor than I or any other sympathetic observer of the East Timor crisis have had over the years. They include the survivors of our Timor army guerilla units of the Second World War who owe their lives to the protection given by the Timorese, the survivors and refugees of the terrible atrocities of the past 24 years, those freedom fighters who took to the hills and held the Indonesians at bay at terrible cost, those civilians who stayed in the towns and villages, stoic in the face of a barbaric occupier claiming an illegitimate sovereignty—Bishop Belo, Jose Ramos Horta, Xanana Gusmao. These are the people whose courage in the face of incredible odds has finally extracted such belated support from the international community.One other person needs mention: President B.J. Habibie, who too has stood up in the face of a dominant and hostile military to enable not only free and fair elections in the greater Indonesia, but most crucially the vote for independence in East Timor and final acceptance of peacekeepers. It is so ironic that the international community, led by the economists as usual, treated this small man with contempt when he replaced Suharto. He was undermined as a vacillating weakling with unfashionable economic theories. He has turned out to have a moral fibre so sadly lacking in our region's leaders for a quarter of a century and an understanding that truth and freedom can be suppressed for only so long. It serves little purpose to go over old ground, except in so far as it enables and compels us to review our security and intelligence operations.Never again should we shove into the bottom draw advice from our intelligence operatives when that advice contradicts political expediency. We had intelligence in March that the Indonesian military was operating and controlling the militias. In May I attended a meeting here in Parliament House of the Parliamentarians for East Timor to hear from Mr Mau Hodu, Xanana Gusmao's spokesman on reconciliation. He implored those few parliamentarians who were there and later reiterated to me that peacekeepers were absolutely essential on the ground long before the August 30th vote and long after.I wrote to the foreign minister expressing Mr Hodu's frustration and fear at what might happen without peacekeepers. The critical point Mr Mau Hodu was making was that 300 United Nations police were just not enough to control the activities of 2,000 to 3,000 militia. He pointed out there were 442 villages in East Timor with half a dozen satellite villages around each one. In March, too, the Four Corners program left absolutely no doubt about the impending bloodbath.Of course there should have been a far stronger international presence in East Timor in the lead-up to the referendum and afterwards. This obviously could have come about only with Indonesian compliance, but why did it take the slaughter of perhaps 5,000 more East Timorese, on top of the 200,000 over 24 years, before finally we, the free world, applied the kind of pressure that Indonesia eventually succumbed to? We should never have been lulled into that ballot without contingency plans to immediately react to the likely violent consequences of an independence vote. Indonesian military assurances were as disingenuous as they had been for 24 years. We were at best naive; at worst tragically negligent.There is no high moral ground to be claimed in this debate. If this government chose to turn its back on intelligence information earlier this year, it is only the last of a long list of similar cries for help from East Timor to be ignored over many years. The Whitlam government adopted a hear no evil, see no evil position in the face of the Indonesian invasion in October 1975, and stands condemned for its meek acceptance of the illegitimate Indonesian expansion, achieved with brutal suppression.The history of East Timor over the past 24 years was forewritten in the blood of those five Australian newsmen, so ruthlessly wiped out by Indonesian forces in Balibo in October 1975. Those who have seen Greg Shackleton's final report from a village near Balibo as he so passionately expressed the simple call for freedom from those East Timorese cannot fail to be moved. That meeting with those villagers persuaded the newsmen to go back to Balibo to report the Indonesian invasion that the Australian government knew all about in advance. There were other diplomatic messages conveniently ignored too at other times, most notably in late 1975.When I saw back then the total contempt with which the Indonesian military regarded human life and any Australian sympathy for the cause of the East Timorese, I knew Jakarta's military generals would do whatever it took to hold onto the abandoned colony. Given the ruthless purge of an estimated 300,000 communist sympathisers throughout the Indonesian archipelago just 10 years earlier, the pattern of bloody suppression by the Indonesian military was well established, a policy that has continued right up to this very day.The Fraser government's recognition of the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia in 1976 and Paul Keating's 1995 mutual defence agreement gave licence to a continuation of this policy, backed up by a compliant international community more concerned with GDP than human rights. Whether it was Liquica or Santa Cruz, there was ample moral ammunition to insist on the international community upholding those rights which we are all so happy to promote and enshrine in UN declarations but often so timid in defending.I do note the change in Labor policy and commend the member for Kingsford-Smith for his efforts on this issue, but why didn't this policy turnaround occur in government, not from the refuge of opposition? One commentator among several has done an about-turn on our East Timor policy in recent days by stating that our military relationship with Indonesia is a national embarrassment. And so too is some of the reporting of the past few weeks a national embarrassment. While there has been some fine and brave reporting, especially from the UN compound in Dili, some reports serve only to quite recklessly further damage our relations with Indonesia. The triumphalism, the tables comparing our military strength with that of Indonesia and a report this morning describing defeated Indonesian troops withdrawing from Dili are highly irresponsible, inflammatory, misleading and possibly life threatening to the East Timorese, and peacekeepers as well.We all stand guilty of not trying hard enough over the years to argue the moral case on behalf of the people of East Timor. They alone, led by Bishop Belo, Ramos Horta, Xanana Gusmao, the East Timorese community within and without their country and the support agencies like the Mary MacKillop Foundation, carried the moral argument to a generally uncaring international community with other agendas. These people are the heroes of what so tragically is a virtual Pyrrhic victory. It could and should have been a far sweeter victory, of right over might, all those years ago. Yet it will be a victory, with possibly 300,000 Timorese victims over 24 years the martyrs to a cause so few in the world who enjoy freedom were prepared to take up.I have no major difficulty with this motion. It states the obvious. I do commend the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs for their efforts these past few weeks. I note particularly the Prime Minister's recognition of how we and the international community acquiesced over East Timor these many years. I commend the Prime Minister for his Christmas letter of last year which set in train a free and fair vote in East Timor. The tragedy is that that vote was not protected until now—at what cost the world is about to discover. I acknowledge that it has been a monumental task to bring the rest of the world on board this rescue mission. We pray all the troops will not be engaged in hostile action and admire their bravery as they step into the unknown. We must demand that the criminals of this undeclared war be brought to justice.As I said, I support the words contained in the motion. What the motion does not contain, though, is crucial, and until we say it we cannot assume any moral ground on East Timor. We should also be saying that this House recognises the grave and tragic mistakes we have made over 24 years in appeasing and so endorsing the often brutal Indonesian administration of East Timor. Until we do, we cannot truly say we have met all our moral responsibilities. It is not unlike saying sorry. We should also have met in this House during the past two weeks to debate a stronger motion than this in support of the East Timorese and rejecting the 1976 petition. We should, as the people's house, have been reporting back to our electorates.Earlier today the Prime Minister quoted Palmerston's famous words that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. I would suggest that Palmerston, while politically accurate, was morally wrong. Unless we uphold our permanent responsibilities, we cannot justify our interests or face our friends. (Time expired)21:40:0010115Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—For the people of East Timor, independence has been a long time coming. Since the 1970s, many Australians have lent their voices to that cry for freedom. On 30 August the East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence from Indonesia, with a turnout of 98 per cent and a vote of a whopping 78 per cent in favour. It appears that the East Timorese dream will become a reality, but only after the nightmare. We all know now that freedom has come at a heavy price, the total of which is still to be tallied. But with an estimated 200,000 in West Timor and a less reliable figure of 190,000 hiding in the hills, displacement alone has created a serious humanitarian problem.The struggle and the conflict themselves are poignant reminders for us who by dint of historical accidents have come to inherit freedoms and a way of life that is sometimes all too easy to take for granted. That blissful ignorance will not be shared by those that first inhabited this land or those who have fled in their droves from cruel, despotic regimes and oppressive ideologies. Nor are our freedoms taken for granted by those who, in their younger days, fought in foreign lands to keep Australia safe, many of whom I have great pleasure in meeting on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and at RSL functions around the electorate. Now there is another generation of Australian soldiers to answer the tocsin. Our prayers and thoughts go with them all as they seek to restore order from what has clearly become a chaotic situation. They are trained and committed, and will acquit themselves as their Anzac predecessors always have, with skill, courage and honour.The deployment of the Australian military leading an international force known as INTERFET clearly has the support of the Australian people—and rightly so. When reports of escalating conflict between the Indonesian military, the pro-integration militia and the East Timorese began to filter through, the Australian people demanded some armed intervention to ease the situation. That feeling was echoed from one end of my electorate to the other. In some ways, I believe that was triggered as part of a psychological appeasement for the guilt many of us have felt over 25 years of Indonesian occupation. We must now resolve that our willingness to help the East Timorese will not wilt under the possibility of Australian casualties. We must resolve to keep faith with our military personnel no matter the strife that lies ahead. The people who are now demanding military intervention should not abandon their support for the cause should this situation become protracted. We owe it to our brave men and women and to the East Timorese that they are not subjected to the same ostracisation and abandonment accorded those who were caught up in the Vietnam conflict.It is to be hoped that tensions will ease quickly and the United Nations can oversee a peaceful transition in the not too distant future. At the same time, it is best if we prepare for the less desirable possibility, that our troops will be `in country' for quite some time. Optimism is possible because this government has followed the correct diplomatic procedures. The dangers facing our forces might have been greater had we taken the knee-jerk response suggested by some of the Labor members opposite—not to mention the obvious danger to 10,000-plus Australian expatriates living in Indonesia had we landed troops without approval. Our measured, well thought out approach has been appropriate, balancing the needs to protect Australians, protect the East Timorese and keep open the communications dialogue between Canberra and Jakarta.Australia remembers fondly the help given our soldiers by the East Timorese in World War II. We will not turn our backs on their plight. As we did with the Kosovars, we have already provided a safe haven here in Australia—and full marks to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for making the necessary arrangements swiftly. Our peacekeepers are in East Timor under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. That Indonesia agreed to the United Nations Security Council resolution of 15 September is a tribute to the Prime Minister and our foreign minister. Because of their approach, such resolution was achieved in a matter of days rather than the usual months.It is easy for Labor to say we should have been quicker. But what have they done for East Timor this past quarter-century? What did the Leader of the Opposition have to say when he was Minister for Defence? In 1998 he said about outgoing Foreign Minister Bill Hayden, whom he praised for conducting sometimes difficult relations with Indonesia:. . . he has, in a way which the previous Government never could have done, brought to rest, for example, the issue of Timor as a source of potential conflict between our two countries in the foreign policy area.In other words, appeasement. It is easy for Labor to quote tabloid television reporters and other scribes of their choosing, but they cannot hide their own indifference behind media skirts.The member for Boothby has already indicated the Leader of the Opposition's abysmal record as defence minister during the Fiji, Vanuatu and Bougainville crises. It is easy for them to say this government should not have taken the word of Indonesia over a peaceful post-ballot transition, but they do not mention that it was they who signed the defence treaty with Indonesia. They do not mention the simple truth of the matter of independence for East Timor: that this is the first government to do anything constructive to promote independence in East Timor, that this is the first government to engage the Indonesian government and leadership in a dialogue of resolution rather than appeasement. It was not Hawke or Keating or Evans or Brereton whose signature appeared at the bottom of a letter to Habibie on the East Timor crisis last December. It was not they who met with Habibie or engaged the Americans or turned APEC's minds to the crisis. Did the US even hear of East Timor when Labor was in office? It was not any of the Labor luminaries that negotiated the terms of the United Nations resolution in New York. No; all of this happened because of the work of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer.The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this is perhaps no greater than it has been on any issue these past few years. But it is sad to see such a stance with thousand upon thousand of lives perhaps already lost and thousand upon thousand more at risk. It is no good hypothesising about what might have been had we made a unilateral decision to send in troops. Perhaps the 26,000-odd Indonesian troops in East Timor and another 200,000 on call might have had something to say about that. Nor does it advance matters any to launch into jingoistic anti-Indonesian rhetoric. They are our neighbours, and while alliances have again and again proved to be temporary, geography is not. This does not mean we must appease our neighbours in order to have a mature relationship. But it means we should work with President Habibie to confront Indonesia's difficulties, not in a patronising manner but with due respect, ever mindful of the humanitarian and democratic values underpinning our society.President Habibie has been doing some significant firewalking in his own domestic political situation and it would be a tragedy for all Indonesians if reform comes to a grinding halt. The Indonesian people are not our enemies. They are an important trading partner. Their need for infrastructure has resulted in jobs for thousands of Australians. We helped out with the much needed IMF bailout of their economy, despite the voices of criticism from some here in Australia. Now we have others howling for trade sanctions. They do not understand that such action would only hurt the average Indonesian and also our own economy. The guilty parties would suffer few ill effects.By now, all Australians recognise that on an island not too far to our north there has occurred a tragedy of a magnitude yet to be determined. Contrary to the claims of General Wiranto, the East Timorese have paid a terrible price for their independence. Those responsible for the slaughter must be held to account for their crimes against unarmed men, women and children. I welcome the United Nations Security Council resolution on this particular point. Of immediate concern is the welfare of the East Timorese and also of our own Australian defence forces. I know that the people of Deakin would join me in wishing them well and hoping for a swift peace in a territory that has suffered far too long. I am proud to be part of a government that has done more than any other to end the misery of a people who deserve to be free.21:49:0010117Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. It is a great pity, however, that the member for Deakin lowered the standard of this debate into a little bit of cheap politicism. Some days and events are defining moments in a nation's history. Today and yesterday, being the culmination of events of the last two weeks—some might argue of the last 25 years—is such an occasion. Let me at the outset endorse the motion being moved in this parliament, especially where the motion expresses the full support for Australians serving with the multinational force, our full confidence in them and the hope for their safe return. Parliament should have been recalled last week to debate this matter. This is the most serious foreign affairs issue that Australia has ever been involved in. For us, this is more serious and of greater importance to Australia than Vietnam or, indeed, the many other peacekeeping missions we have been involved in. Timor is Australia's Vietnam or Northern Ireland. We are in Timor for the long term and this will change Australia like no other event ever has. I do not believe that the average Australian has yet come to terms with the reality of what we face in East Timor and what Timor is today. I do believe that these tragic events in East Timor have exposed Australia's shortcomings in diplomacy and planning. The world has played a cruel hoax on the Timorese people. They were encouraged to vote. They were even promised protection, and when they needed it the world looked away. The world, including Australia, did little to condemn Indonesia's occupation of Timor in 1975, and just as Timor has been used in Indonesia's domestic political purposes so it was in Australia 25 years ago.For the world, Timor has been a small, far-flung island in which few people have an interest. But to Australia it is our nearest neighbour. It was not until the full brutality was unleashed on the Timorese people that very slowly the world started to take notice—too slowly and too late to save thousands of lives. Had our diplomacy not failed us and had we been prepared to act, thousands of lives could have been saved—lives that have been needlessly wasted as a well-prepared plan was put into savage practice, a brutality and savagery that all would have hoped a civilised people would have been unwilling to carry out.A fortnight ago I spoke in this parliament on a resolution recognising the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions and protocols, guaranteeing support for civilian people caught up by armed conflict. The fragility of such agreements and protocols has been shown up in Timor. These agreements and protocols can work only if all the participants agree to act with some degree of respect for human dignity. Unarmed people cannot stand up against an armed militia. This has been shown in Timor. The world demands that those responsible for the brutality and murder be brought before international tribunals of justice. Perhaps we cannot stop a Timor, a Kosovo or a Rwanda, but the perpetrators of these murderous actions must be brought to account. If we have moved on at all, if human dignity and life have any meaning, those responsible for the atrocities in East Timor must be brought before international justice.Many people have criticised the United Nations and pointed out its failings and shortcomings, and have claimed that the UN should have acted more quickly and decisively. Such people, and such claims, always overlook the reality of what the UN is. They refer to the UN as an entity in its own right. The UN is not a separate entity but a collection of sovereign states. It has no sovereignty or mandate except that given to the UN by the membership of sovereign states. If individual nations had wanted to act, if the world had been as outraged as they pretend, the sovereign states making up the United Nations would have acted. It is too easy to blame the UN. It is the sovereign states which make up the membership of the UN that should have acted. The United Nations is only as strong, only as powerful as its member states allow it to be.Many of the points I would have made have been made during this long debate today, and I do not propose to go over this ground. But I conclude with a plea to the government to restore the transmitter service at Cox Peninsula near Darwin. This facility was closed by this government some two years ago, for a miserly saving of $5 million. At least two reports from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade have recommended that this facility at Cox Peninsula be reopened. The government has stubbornly refused to act on these recommendations. Indeed, I understand that the government is proceeding with a plan to sell the facility to a religious group from the United States. The site is currently maintained by a contractor and cannot be sold because it is subject to a claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.It is not religious propaganda that should be beamed into Timor and Indonesia. We need to retain the ability to speak to the Timorese and the Indonesians directly, as we have for many years. We need to directly assure the Indonesian people that we have no argument with them but that we are critical of elements within their armed forces that have cooperated with the militia and, indeed, have orchestrated much of the bloodbath that has been East Timor over the past two weeks. Expressions of interest for the Cox Peninsula transmitters close on 30 September and a full tendering process is then to take place. The facilities at Cox Peninsula, which I have visited along with many other members of this parliament, are all in place and are ready to be switched on. It is only the stubbornness of this government and the minister that will not let the facility at Cox Peninsula near Darwin come on stream again.Timor has been an issue of blunder for Australia over two decades. I am not particularly prepared to apportion blame. The Labor Party has nothing to be proud of in our stand on Timor. I have said that publicly over the last few weeks in Wollongong at rallies. This government has nothing to be proud of either. Both sides of the political fence have colluded with the Indonesian government, to our everlasting shame, over East Timor. As I said, Timor has been an issue of blunder for Australia over two decades, and certainly in the last fortnight, but the sell-off of the Cox Peninsula transmitters would be the final folly in a sorry debacle. Again I plead with the government: restore this facility, reopen it and do not proceed with the plan to sell it off. Australia can afford $5 million to get a lasting message to Indonesia, the Indonesian people and Timor.I repeat what I said at the outset: we wish our brave Australian men and women serving in East Timor, carrying out the wishes of this parliament, all the very best. They have our total and unqualified support. We all look forward to their return home safely. We also look forward to restoring stability and peace in East Timor. Surely no people deserve it more. 21:57:0010119Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I would like to document the feeling of the people in my electorate of Gilmore towards this crisis and the security of the East Timorese people, both in the lead-up to and after the referendum on independence. My office was flooded with calls and letters and lots of people taking the time to come in the front door. The resounding message was, `What are you waiting for? Send in the troops. Hurry up, get in there! You are all gutless wonders.' I had one school stage a protest outside my office. Other students were encouraged by some to strike in protest at the delays in getting the Australian soldiers into East Timor. Another high school threatened to march on my office and burn an Australian flag because this government was not sending the troops straight in.Our young people and their families were calling for swift action. Our older Australians started to recall memories of other civil wars and were a lot more reticent about what was unfolding in East Timor, knowing full well the effects and repercussions of moving a force into another country without permission, therefore becoming an invader. One such person said that this action reminded him of seeing a parent going off at a child in the supermarket and yelling during the beating, `Don't (slap) hit (slap) your brother (slap, slap).' Surely modelling correct behaviour is the best teacher, else the lesson learnt is simply that you have to be the biggest to be able to bully and get away with it. Should Australia really invade Indonesia to teach it not to invade other countries? It doesn't make sense, does it?The media portrayed this government as unmoved, uninterested, slow to act and perhaps even uncaring. The most positive reaction in my electorate came from a high school principal. Rather than have the students go on strike and conduct a protest march in ignorance, he allowed them to cut classes on the basis that they use the time to research the issue. I was invited to contribute to their research by answering the students' questions. There ensued a most interesting afternoon, with all sorts of different ideas, perceptions and interests being aired along with some very insightful questions, some of which I could not answer straightaway.The result of this principal's action was that these students actually walked away from the incident with a better understanding not only of the East Timor difficulties but also of the way the media, politics and diplomacy work. They began to recognise that it would be unhelpful to become casualties of the situation through ill-considered early action.Behind the scenes an entirely different attitude was apparent to even the most cynical observer. The Prime Minister, his cabinet, their advisers and departmental staff worked tirelessly to ensure that negotiations with Indonesia and with the countries likely to assist in a United Nations mandated force continued in a quiet, measured and well considered manner. The focus of the newscasts and people's attitudes suddenly changed. They came to understand the logistics of the then situation in Dili—2,500 Australians, 26,000 Indonesian police and army officers, and an unknown force of militia.Almost instantly the messages faxed, written, phoned and carried into my office changed. My constituents then became concerned for the safety of Australia's sons and daughters who would be facing risks to assist our neighbours in getting the independence for which they voted in good faith. They also became aware that in our midst was HMAS Albatross, comprising men and women they met regularly on social occasions. Now it was these men and women who would be contenders for going over there to East Timor to face who knew what. I too recognised the full weight of this reality and my regret is not having had the opportunity, as their federal member, to thank them on behalf of the people of Gilmore.Now people in my electorate are coming to hold a new respect for the Prime Minister and for his ability to withstand outside pressure and media calls for action. John Howard is a man who considers all the angles, who cares deeply for his constituents—all of us, whether we have voted for him or not—and who is prepared to make pragmatic decisions which in the short term may go against the popular flow. Now the very same students who earlier wanted to march in the streets and burn the Australian flag are asking me if there is any way in which they can help or become involved. They are asking me about national service and suggesting that it may be necessary to make sure there are enough people with the skills to assist should another East Timor happen somewhere else. Some of these students are already part of military cadet units at their school.A question I am regularly asked is: why does Australia have these military relationships with Indonesia and why haven't we severed all defence, trade and aid links with this country? It is a difficult question to answer when our emotions tell us that we must help. I reply by stating that it is really difficult to resolve difficulties with neighbours through negotiation when you are not talking to them at all. And it is only because of Australia's good relationship with the Indonesian military that the United Nations compound and Australian residences could be evacuated with full security. In fact, Kofi Annan, the leader of the United Nations, asked Australia specifically not to sever all military relations with Indonesia because of our relationship's value in negotiations.Through all of this I cannot help thinking about just how fortunate we are in Australia. We have the right to vote and we vote in total security. In fact, so complacent are some of our people about this right that they do not vote at all. Isn't that ironic? People just an hour's flight from Australia are being killed because they have asked for the right to vote for whom they want, our servicemen and women are putting their lives on the line to uphold the right to self-determination and yet we have people in Australia whom, when I check their voting status, I find are not even enrolled to vote in their own country.From this may I take a message to all the young people who are about to reach the age when they can enrol to vote. Please get yourself on an electoral roll. Once on the roll, I do not care how you vote, just do not waste it. Make your vote count. How can we have people actually dying to get a vote when others cannot be bothered to take up that right?There is a referendum on 6 November this year. Take the time to think carefully about how you will make your mark on the history of this nation. Although you might feel that one vote does not count, think of it in this way. How much does a snowflake weigh? Virtually nothing, but get big enough snowflakes building up on a branch and their combined weight will break that branch right off the tree. Your vote might be like the first snowflake and seem to have no effect or be like the last snowflake and seem to break the branch. Most of our votes are somewhere in the middle and all of them count towards the total.If this government has learnt one lesson about the organisation of a military mission, hostile or peaceful, it is that the people at home need lots of support while their partner, family member or friend is absent. This is because if our service personnel know that everything is well looked after at home they can focus fully on the task at hand and not pay any additional price through the breakdown of family or other relationships. Coping with the knowledge that a loved one is working in circumstances involving a degree of risk is not easy, regardless of prior expectations. In Gilmore, as in the rest of Australia, our military forces impact a great deal on the lives of those connected to a serviceman or woman. It is only fair therefore that we endeavour to stem any negative impacts on these lives.One of the comments I constantly hear from service personnel is that, when they joined up, they did not sign on for a job; they signed on for a way of life. In return the armed services agreed to look after their welfare, provide a real career path, leadership training and meaningful work. By their actions, our people and the people of 11 other countries will model right behaviour and uphold the ideals of democratically chosen independence. In this way it is hoped that peace will be restored to East Timor and that the task of governance can proceed; then hopefully this sorry tale of human suffering will end in a positive way.I thank all those who wrote, faxed or emailed their concerns. I thank also the person from the local branch of Amnesty International who stopped me in the street to tell me what a grand job Prime Minister John Howard and foreign minister Alexander Downer are doing and that perhaps our defence budget should increase, something that she—a woman of peace—would never have contemplated before. Lastly, as the chairman of the government defence and veterans affairs' committee, can I say particularly to the men and women of our defence forces: we in Australia salute you.22:07:0010121Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I rise to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. I do so on the basis that, as a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, I am well aware of the sacrifices that are made by people from the defence forces. Arguably, many will say that probably the Australian tradition, the very identity of an Australian, was born on the hills of Gallipoli back in 1915. The present soldiers, the people from the Defence Force that are in East Timor as part of the peacekeeping force, will no doubt follow in that fine tradition.I have a great deal of respect for our defence forces and I do not think this debate is one where the government can take credit. We have speakers saying how great the Prime Minister is and how great the foreign affairs minister is, but the reality is that we have a very dangerous situation on our hands and our Australian defence personnel have been asked to serve and, as always, when asked to serve, they are doing just that. I am sure they carry the wishes of not only the people in this House—I am sure unanimously—but the people of Australia. In terms of whether they should have been there beforehand or whatever I think that is of little consequence. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the situation leading up to the referendum could have been dealt with much more appropriately and that perhaps many lives could have been saved.I do not want to dwell on that but I want to talk about a number of other matters which I think are of great importance. I believe these latest events over the last couple of weeks will probably serve to remind Australians that we are very much alone in this part of the world in many respects. In the past, we have been seen as a large, wealthy and underpopulated country. Our region is in fact overpopulated, poverty is rife and it is unstable politically, as events have shown. As I see it, we need to take a salutary lesson as to what has happened now. Of course, we wish our defence forces well. Of course, we know that they are brave and that they will carry on the tradition of the original Anzacs, and we hope and pray that they will not be involved in any confrontation where any of them get injured or indeed lose their lives.It is also terrific to know that there are other countries around the world that are part of this force. During the debate, the Treasurer mentioned a number of countries that are contributing defence forces to the international peacekeeping force and I was reminded—and I am quite proud to say this—that the Italians, people from my old country, have contributed. They are sending about 250 paratroopers, quite an elite force as I understand it, from Pisa, together with 400 medical and other support staff. So I thank them for that. As I said, as a former Minister for Veterans' Affairs it gives me a great deal of pleasure to know that the country in which I was born—and which during World War II was on the other side—is there with us, shoulder by shoulder.This brings to mind the importance of the size of our country as it is today, the number of people we have in it and the number of people that, because of our size, we are able to support as a defence force. We have about 50,000 full-time defence personnel, yet there are countries around us, including Indonesia, whose defence forces number in the hundreds of thousands. It stands to reason that, because there have been wars in the past, there will always be wars in the future. There will be those who will eye us off and say, `Australians think they are safe. They are happy and it is a peaceful country.' It is all of that but will it be like that in the future if we maintain our population at the same levels?I want to say a few words following upon a seminal speech, I believe, that the Leader of the Opposition gave in South Australia only last Friday. He spoke about the importance of defence and its link to policies of population. I will quote from that excellent speech because I think he says it all, and quite eloquently. He says:The second issue I want to cover today is the contribution of population policy to a stronger national defence.In the wake of events in Timor, we will in the months and years to come need to embark on a re-appraisal of Australian foreign and defence policy.And I am here to argue that we should do so with one overriding priority before us: the concept of self-reliance.Self-reliance in defence is a hardy perennial for Australia, but for all that, we still don't seem to have the necessary political consensus around it. This ties back to population policy in two ways: firstly, the contribution of a higher population to a stronger defence generally; and secondly, the need to have a significant population in Northern Australia.On the first issue, I note the comments of Australian Defence Force Chief—Admiral Chris Barrie—who said recently, and I quote:"One resource we are short of is people . . . We are trying to mount security with 50,000 full-time people roughly. That is a big ask in a country this size . . . By 2050 the population of Australia will be only 22 million . . . and there will be more grey people than they will be young people."The Leader of the Opposition goes on to say:I think these comments deserve some weight—coming as they do from the Chief of the Defence Force. An aging population means many things, but one of the most troubling is the declining population base fit for military service.On the issue of Northern Australia, we are fortunate that during Labor's most recent period in office, the emphasis on defence self-reliance saw us move much of our defence capability to Northern Australia.The fact that we have been able to mount and lead a peacekeeping operation from Darwin depends entirely on that decision.I said in one of my earlier population speeches that we must always keep before us the inappropriateness of our population clinging to the coastline, as if looking for the first boat out. Similarly, the relative underpopulation of our north is not a sustainable prospect when it comes to defending this nation. Let me say I also believe that the population aspects of defence must be accompanied by an improved focus of the resourcing of defence. As I said earlier, the crisis in Timor must serve to remind us all of the importance of the public sector to national investment, rather than Peter Costello's view that a surplus is only ever an opportunity for tax cuts.He then goes on to say at the end of this session:I want to flag here today that these recent developments have elevated in my mind the importance of the defence arguments in favour of a comprehensive Australian population policy, and made it more important than ever that we engage with this debate now.This is a perfect opportunity for the public of Australia to look at whether we should be increasing our population in the years to come so that we will have sufficient young people here—not next year or the year after but in the next 50 years—to adequately defend this country and make it grow with the promise it has. That may well require a more robust immigration program, which I personally support. It may well also include examining family services to see whether there is some way that we can improve fertility rates. I am not 100 per cent sure of how we could do that. However, I am sure that the shadow minister for family and community services, my colleague Wayne Swan, will come up with some ideas in that regard. I believe that now is the time to bring this debate out into the community to let people know that once and for all we are no longer able to say we are as safe as we were before.In this last minute or so, I want to say in my capacity as shadow minister for immigration that I am currently very happy with the efforts of the government, particular the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, regarding the processes that have been put in place to bring some of these people to Australia and give them safe haven. At this time, all requests have been met, looked at compassionately and dealt with using a great deal of expeditious handling. I commend the government for it. Given that there will be many more of these requests, I hope that the government will continue in this way. I wholeheartedly support the motion. I wish our Defence personnel serving in East Timor well. I hope that they all come back. I know that they will continue in the great tradition of the Anzacs and that they are people who will do their job to the best of their ability.22:16:0010123Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPCommunity Services10—I too rise to support the motion to speak on East Timor, an issue of immense concern to my constituents on the North Coast of New South Wales, as it is to all Australians. Firstly, I wish good luck and safe return to the following people who have families on the New South Wales North Coast. I will mention them by name and give apologies to others: Grant Haigh of Condong; Theresa Whyte of Pottsville; Stuart Scott of Murwillumbah; Wayne, Graham and Rosalyn McLeay, all from one family in Lismore; Brian Denning from Coraki; and Travis Collins. I convey to the House the hopes and prayers of all North Coast residents for your safe return. We are immensely proud of you as you should be of yourselves. We go not as warriors but as peacekeepers, a role in which Australia has a proud tradition. We have served in nations in our region, particularly Cambodia, and in far-flung countries on the African continent.While the main focus of our hopes is those who are risking their lives to help others, I also acknowledge the support of the wider community on the North Coast who have shown unselfish support for this worthy mission. There have been rallies in Byron Bay and Lismore in support of the deployment that the government has now sanctioned. I also acknowledge Dean Jeffries and Kia Mistilis of the Byron Friends of East Timor and Russel Anderson of the Lismore Friends of East Timor, who was in Dili. We may not sit on the same side of the political fence, but we certainly respect each other's views, particularly at this defining moment. While I welcome the support of the Friends of East Timor and others in my region, I expect them to recognise their responsibilities to maintain that support even when the going gets tough.The mission has begun well. Nevertheless, it is fraught with danger. We will have to stand by our forces even if casualty counts rise. I pray and hope that they do not. The mission will also be very expensive. North coast residents will have to make financial sacrifices, as will all Australian taxpayers, as the cost of doing the right thing in East Timor rises.The people of East Timor have been suffering for decades. What most of them have been through in the last few weeks is about as appalling as you can get. We have been used to ethnic cleansing in far-flung places such as Kosovo and the genocide in Rwanda and Cambodia and other parts of Africa and Asia. However, this island is far closer to Darwin than even my electorate on the far North Coast of New South Wales. That is why Australia rightly opened its arms to those refugees in the UNAMET compound who wanted to leave.Last Friday, I met with many of these people in the camp in Darwin, where they were looked after before many of them were flown south to Puckapunyal. There were 1,500 refugees in the camp and around 400 emergency service officers and volunteers, mainly from the local Timorese community, the omnipresent Red Cross and church groups. I could witness on their faces the enormous tragedy that unfolded to them and the terrible ordeals that they had been through. At the same time, there was almost a strength within the refugees, particularly the families, to move forward.I also acknowledge the East Timorese community in Darwin, many members of which were refugees themselves from Indonesia's early annexation. They were a particularly welcome sight to the new arrivals. The East Timorese Catholic priests have made sure that there is order, discipline and hope in those camps. The cooks told me that even in the first few days the Timorese were there they ate three times the amount that mining crews would normally eat because they had not eaten for weeks and they were not sure where their next meal would come from.I also thank the staff in Immigration, my department and Centrelink who helped with the processing and administration aspects of the operations. I met East Timorese who had seen their friends executed by the militia right outside the UNAMET compound. They told of unspeakable atrocities and evil deeds that members would have seen in media reports. Despite this, there was a spirit to move forward.Australia has a long tradition of bipartisan support in times of national crisis. Unfortunately, that tradition was broken by the opposition in the most opportunistic way. I feel compelled to set the record straight. Labor has constantly been critical of the Prime Minister and the government for not utilising the military force earlier, although the premise that we should have moved into East Timor prior to the vote, even though we had no sanction from the Indonesian government, could well have been tantamount to a declaration of war. With this divisive tactic, some members of the opposition have conveniently forgotten the events of history, although I note the moderate comments from the member for Bowman, who is one of the sensible members of the opposition.Let me spell out some of the facts. Fact No. 1: in 1975, the then government of the day failed to intervene on behalf of the East Timorese. Labor's Gough Whitlam gave the Indonesian military carte blanche to intervene. Fact No. 2: it was the now Leader of the Opposition and then shadow defence minister who thought it was such a good idea to put cosy relations with the Indonesian military junta and economic benefits ahead of human rights. Fact No. 3: it was Paul Keating who signed the secret military pact with Suharto. Fact No. 4: it was John Howard who made the independence vote possible by Australian efforts. Fact No. 5: it was the current Prime Minister who put together the extraordinary coalition of willing nations which will hopefully restore peace on this troubled island.John Howard deserves accolades for the way he has handled this most difficult issue, as do the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, and the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore. It is not an easy decision to send young Australians into a combat zone. The Prime Minister has earned his colours as one of Australia's great statesmen. Other nations, not just those in ASEAN, are participating in this multinational force.In closing, I remind the House that what Australia is doing is very important. It has made the right decision to help the East Timorese. It is a defining moment. We have a proud military history that has taken us from the shores of Gallipoli to the battlefields of France in World War I, to the deserts of the Middle East in World War II, to the Pacific campaign against the Japanese—and in particular the Kokoda Trail—to the Malaysian emergency, to Vietnam and, not so long ago, to the Kuwait-Iraq conflict. Now in 1999, at the turn of the millennium, we are leading our forces into East Timor as they helped us in our darkest hour to repel enemy forces in World War II.This is the first time we have led an international expedition. We are there because we refuse to compromise on our principles and on our recognition of democracy. When you have 78 per cent of East Timorese voting for independence, we cannot stand by and let an evil minority deny democracy to an overwhelming majority. Operation Stabilise has come about because we took a stand. It is a result of our persistence, our lobbying and our commitment. It is a true sign that Australia has matured as a nation.It must be remembered, though, that we do not have a beef with the Indonesian people. It is in our national interest to maintain good relations with our nearest neighbour, and we have to remember that there are many Australians living in Indonesia. The Prime Minister's decision to commit our service men and women to this perilous operation was not taken lightly. Our troops are highly trained and skilled young men and women. We should feel proud of them and have every confidence in their ability to do the job. Again, I convey the hopes and prayers of all North Coast people for our men and women in East Timor to serve under God's guidance and to return safely.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment10125Motion (by Mr Anthony) proposed:That the House do now adjourn. 1012522:26:0010125Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to express my concern about the Australian Cricket Board's decision to discontinue the Australian Schools Cricket Cup finals due to the running costs no longer being met by sponsors or the Australian Cricket Board. At a time when interest in cricket is at an all-time high due to the Australian cricket team's success in the World Cup and the current tour of Sri Lanka, we should be encouraging young Australians to participate in this sport at all levels. While not every young cricketer will be successful in playing for Australia, competing at a national level is a dream many young cricketers aim to achieve. I particularly express my concern that a school cricket team in my electorate has been denied the opportunity to compete at a national level due to this decision.St Patricks Blacktown First XI has won the A-grade Metropolitan Catholic School Premiership, the New South Wales Catholic Colleges Downie Trophy and the New South Wales All Schools Omnican Trophy. St Pat's was successful in the state championship, which consists of the best two teams from each of the major education groups in New South Wales. All secondary schools in New South Wales are invited to participate.To win the state championship, St Pats defeated St Gregorys College, Campbelltown, and Oakhill College, Castle Hill. It then defeated Trinity Grammar in the Champion of Champions final in a very tight finish, with Trinity Grammar 10-95, and St Pats 8-96. The player of the series was a St Pats team member, Troy McFadden. He took four wickets in each of the three final games of the series. The captain of the side, Michael Wood, was also selected in the New South Wales under-17 state side. The St Patricks side was undefeated in all 16 games.Many of the team members developed their skills through one of the progressive junior cricket clubs in Western Sydney—Kings Langley Cricket Club. St Pats competed in these competitions during the 1998-99 season on the understanding that the successful school in the New South Wales Schools Championship would be entitled to compete at a national level in the Australian School Cricket Cup finals. In spite of St Pats' outstanding cricket success, this now appears unlikely due to the Australian Cricket Board's decision to discontinue this competition.This decision is denying many young cricketers in Western Sydney the opportunity to develop their cricketing skills by competing at a national level. If the Australian Cricket Board's decision to withdraw support for the national finals was being considered due to the lack of sponsorship, this decision should have been made prior to the commencement of the season so as to give other sponsors the opportunity of filling the gap.This decision sends a message that the ACB is not interested in supporting school cricket at this level, and it reaches far beyond the current position affecting one school. It affects all students throughout the country who continue to develop their cricketing skills and love of the game through school cricket.The faces of young students, as all schools' first XI teams are paraded at assemblies around the country, hold the key to their dreams and aspirations of one day reaching the same level. Each of these schools continues to aid the development of cricket within Australia by helping to promote the game and coach the stars of tomorrow. What better experience for these young cricketers than to compete in their school cricket team at a national level? Although only one of many schools in each state or territory can reach this prestigious level each season, thousands of young cricketers no longer have this goal to reach each year.The Australian Cricket Board needs to understand how a national competition keeps dreams alive for many young cricketers. While all members of this parliament enjoyed the privilege of the visit of the Australian cricket team to this parliament earlier this year, and many of our friends and relatives were able to rub shoulders with some of our cricketing heroes, there are many young battling cricketers in Western Sydney who do not get this unique opportunity. It is up to the Australian cricket hierarchy to ensure that these battlers reach the pinnacle of their skills. Surely a decision to keep the Australian Schools Cricket Council Cup alive would be good for the game.While they are disappointed at the ACB's decision to discontinue this competition, I am sure that St Pats will continue to maintain its deep commitment to the game of cricket and would want me, on their behalf, to wish Steve Waugh and his team all the best of success in their current tour of Sri Lanka.Finally, I call on that cricketaholic of this parliament, the Prime Minister, to use his undoubted influence on the ACB to try to have this great school competition reinstated for the good of our young cricketers of all states.1012622:31:0010126Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise tonight to speak about an event in my home city of Toowoomba which is something of a tradition. The Carnival of Flowers is the longest running flower show in the Southern Hemisphere.This year we were particularly blessed with extraordinary weather—so much so that even the Premier, who officiated at the opening of the parade, was moved to say:I couldn't think of a better way to enjoy this beautiful day than being here.Of course Toowoomba is renowned for its flowers, and, as the Prime Minister says, it is the most beautiful inland city in Australia. This year the gardens were exceptional, and I would like to congratulate Rod and Maureen Hullgren, who won the home garden competition grand championship.The Deputy Prime Minister was in Toowoomba last week, and, amongst other things, he inspected one of the very go-ahead businesses in my electorate, KR Darling Downs. KR Darling Downs is having a multimillion dollar expansion which is being funded in part by the incentives scheme put in place by the federal government. On his way back to the airport, the Deputy Prime Minister took the time to inspect the Hullgrens' garden. Being from the land, John Anderson is a great connoisseur of gardens and natural beauty, and I think that he may in time join the Prime Minister in praise of Toowoomba.Toowoomba city is a town that is very proud of its flowers, and it is also a city that has a great community spirit. I think it is fitting that the grand champion float in the Carnival of Flowers parade was won by a Bunch of Christians. It was a magnificent float, stretching half a city block, with a theme that underpins a city that has a great tradition not only in natural beauty but in community values.Toowoomba is a city of great potential. Whenever I rise in this House to speak about Toowoomba, I never fail to talk about the great potential that is yet to be unlocked in this city. The city of Toowoomba is held back at times by a lack of infrastructure, and I find it interesting to look at the results of the Victorian state election. I hope that this government will realise that we are going to have to pay greater attention to regional infrastructure, including the range crossing which I speak about regularly. Toowoomba is a city which has potential not only to grow but to add a great deal to the Australian economy. I think it is only fitting that a city such as Toowoomba has that potential unleashed.When we think of Toowoomba and the great Carnival of Flowers which has reached its half century, we should think not only of the beauty which that city can offer this country over the next half century but of the economic potential for the Australian economy. That will only happen if we realise that regional Australia and cities like Toowoomba need to be fostered and need to have government investment—not only in roads but in railway systems, in airports and in ensuring that business continues to be attracted there.Whilst I have risen primarily to congratulate the gardeners of Toowoomba and to thank the 100,000 tourists who came to our beautiful city over the weekend, I have to take the opportunity, as always, to implore this government not to forget our regional cities but to continue to maintain investment in regional Australia. It will reward this nation many times over and ensure that, as Australia grows under the sound management of the current federal government, so will regional Australia.1012722:36:0010127McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I stand today to acknowledge the efforts of successful small businesses in the Stirling electorate. The men and women who run these businesses provide the backbone of free enterprise and initiative in this country. The Stirling Business Association is an organisation that promotes business activity in the Stirling region. It provides free business advice and assistance and networking opportunities and acts as a representative body in lobbying all levels of government.Every year the Stirling Business Association hosts business awards in the Stirling region—a region that also takes in parts of the neighbouring electorates of Curtin and Cowan. Recently I attended the 1999 Stirling Region BankWest/West Coast College Small Business Awards at Rendezvous Observation City in Scarborough. The awards have three categories of achievement which are related to the size of the businesses. The three categories are: businesses with less than five employees, businesses with less than 20 employees and businesses with less than 50 employees.In the businesses with less than five employees category the following outstanding local businesses were chosen as finalists from a strong field of entrants: NetFX, Ovations, Edu-Tainment, Rosaflora Academy in Floristry and Austmag. The judges in this category faced a difficult choice as the standard of entrants was extremely high. The business that was eventually chosen as the winner was Austmag. Austmag is a small family business run by Bruce and Wendy Inglis. Austmag are importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers of all types of magnetic materials and products. The magnetic materials produced and sold by Austmag are used in a variety of applications. For example, many members of this House produce a fridge calendar each year to distribute to their electorates. The type of magnet used in these calendars is only one of the wide range of products the company produces. I would like to personally congratulate Bruce and Wendy on their achievement, and I wish them the best in their future business endeavours.In the businesses with less than 20 employees category the following businesses were recognised as finalists: Right Marketing, Small Bins, SecureX Security and Networx Internet Access Providers. The finalists in this category covered a wide range of industries from a marketing company to an Internet service provider. The winner in this category was Networx Internet Access Providers. Networx was founded by Stephen Harley and Mike and Nick Crane in 1996. Networx is based in Balcatta, which is in the heart of my electorate. Networx offers a wide range of services, which include webpage development, web hosting, e-commerce solutions and consulting. Based on customer numbers, the company is one of the top 10 service providers in Western Australia and is growing rapidly. I would like to personally congratulate Stephen, Mike and Nick on the success of their business.The information technology industry is a growth area of business in the electorate of Stirling. There are a number of successful ISPs in the local area. Many of these businesses contacted me earlier in the year regarding the negative effect of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (On-line Services) Bill 1999, which was debated in this House earlier in the year. I hope that the cost of complying with this flawed legislation does not stifle the extraordinary growth we have seen in this sector and in my electorate.The final category in the awards was businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The businesses that were deemed by the judges to be worthy finalists in this category were: Harber Passmore Real Estate, Star Protection, Memo Communications and Omnitronics. The winner in this category was Omnitronics. David Nicholson, James Wilcox and Peter Lowe established Omnitronics in Western Australia in 1981. The company provides electronic design and manufacturing services and is an acknowledged leader in speciality electronic designs. Omnitronics is based in Osborne Park and has expanded its operations through offices in Queensland and Victoria. The company is fully accredited to ISO 9002. This accreditation is indicative of the company's commitment to providing quality products and services to their customers. The company, especially its General Manager, Jon Goudge, is to be congratulated on winning this prestigious award.I am very proud to be a member of the Stirling Small Business Association not only because of its long commitment to the Stirling area but also because it remains a vital and forceful organisation today. This is in great part thanks to the work of Christine Evans, the Executive Officer of the Association, President John Denton and the Small Business Awards team of Richard Broad and Peter West. The awards, run in conjunction with the Stirling Business Enterprise Centre and its sponsors, provide a wonderful opportunity for this region to showcase its many dynamic and innovative businesses. I look forward to working alongside these people in my capacity as federal member to ensure the growth and continued success of this important backbone to our economy, the small business sector.1012822:41:0010128Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Australians from all walks of life have been outraged by the atrocities committed in East Timor. We have been shocked by the violation of the rights of other human beings. We have been left bewildered by the blatant breach of the boundaries of what we know to be the difference between right and wrong.As one of the world's longest standing democracies, Australia has an interest in seeing that basic human rights are observed throughout the international community. As a leader in South-East Asia, Australia has an international responsibility to advance the protection of human rights in the immediate region. East Timor has presented us with the starkest example of the outcome when there is a clear absence of effective protection of basic human rights. It is on our doorstep, and because of our empathy with the people of East Timor it is in our hearts. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Indonesian government has played too passive a role in protecting the East Timorese from the human rights abuses at the hands of the militia. It is very clear that the Indonesian military has been complicit in the frightening brutality visited upon the people of East Timor.East Timor has had a sorry history. The East Timorese suffered at the hands of the Japanese after the withdrawal of Australian forces. The flight of the Portuguese as the colonial power occurred not long after the overthrow of the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal in 1974. It culminated in a poorly planned withdrawal of the Portuguese administration. The leadership vacuum that was created was quickly filled by a fractious local leadership. The resulting internal instability cleared the way for Indonesia's declaration of integration in November 1975 and the invasion of Indonesian troops soon after. Authoritative sources estimate that about 200,000 people were killed in the ensuing military crackdown and the famine that followed.In the nearly 25 years since, the East Timorese have suffered but never accepted the forced integration of their nascent country and have weathered the continuous violations of human rights. They have waited patiently and with hope for independence and peace. The unbridled violence and mayhem of the last 2½ weeks make what has gone before pale into insignificance. The images of fleeing families, murdered innocents, the tales of massacre and slaughtering of nuns and priests and the sacking and destruction of Dili has shocked us all. But Australia has stepped up to the plate and demonstrated the character, grit and sense of fairness that underpins our national pride. Our Prime Minister and the foreign, defence and immigration ministers have acted honourably and effectively. In a 2½-week period, Australia has secured the necessary resolution of the United Nations Security Council to establish the peacekeeping force for East Timor; garnered international opinion in favour of acting to protect the human rights of the people of East Timor; accepted and provided safe haven to East Timorese fleeing the carnage of home; put together an international peace force, INTERFET, with real representation from other Asian countries—ASEAN countries in particular; and calmly, but resolutely, led INTERFET onto the ground in East Timor. God willing, it will stay without incident—as it has been.Although largely driven by the Australian government, the peace restoration mission has received a wide cross section of international support. Forces from Thailand, New Zealand, the United States and Great Britain are already there, and countries like Italy, Canada, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, France and Brazil will contribute to INTERFET. Other countries, like Japan, will make significant contributions to the UN Trust Fund established for INTERFET. The government's objectives are to honour the terms of the United Nations resolution and provide a stabilising force in the province until independence is secured for the East Timorese.This government wants to see an outcome that includes independence and peace in East Timor and stronger, more cooperative links with Indonesia for the future. While right now there does not appear to be anything certain about East Timor's future, one thing is for certain: Australia will stand by the people of East Timor—now and in the future. I would like to wish the service men and women well and trust in God that they will all return casualty free. I thank them for their commitment and the potential sacrifice that they are showing for their country.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the next speaker in the adjournment debate, I would point out to the member for Sturt that, while I deliberately chose not to interrupt him because of the unanimous nature of the decision taken earlier today in the House, his speech in the adjournment debate went close to defying standing order 69, which suggests that one ought not to return to a debate on which a vote has already been taken. If the member for Watson also wants to consider that matter, I will accommodate him in the same vein.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I think that is a stupid ruling, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson knows better than to reflect on the chair.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You are dead right. The House has already had the debate and in the Main Committee tomorrow we are going to have a debate on exactly the same thing. I will be interested to see if you come up there and close that debate down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—If the member for Watson wishes the call, he will not reflect on the chair.1013022:46:0010130McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Today, 21 September, is World Alzheimer's Day. The Australian Alzheimer's Association has circulated a lot of material to members about this. There was an excellent article in the newspaper today, and there was a very good program tonight on the SBS program The Cutting Edge about the effects of Alzheimer's and the fact that it is a disease that we may ultimately find an answer to in a chemical form. I recall going to a Commonwealth Fund conference in London in 1982 which looked at the problems of ageing. One of the outcomes of that conference was that, if there were a debilitative problem among ageing people that might find an answer via research and a chemical process to reverse it, it would be Alzheimer's disease.I had the disturbing experience of my own mother, who died last year, having Alzheimer's disease in a mild form in her declining years. In some ways, the forgetfulness of someone who has mild Alzheimer's can seem to others to be rather humorous. For the person with only a mild form of Alzheimer's, it is obviously very disturbing because they are never quite sure where they are. Those who have severe Alzheimer's do not know where they are at all but, for their families, it is a terrible disease.My mother-in-law has Alzheimer's at a very advanced stage. In my mother and my mother-in-law's case, I am talking about women in their 70s and 80s. People tend to see it as a disease that affects old people in nursing homes and hostels, but Alzheimer's is a disease that can affect relatively young people—people in their 50s. People who get it at that age find that its effects can be dealt with with medicines.The unfortunate thing is that Australia is among the few countries in the world that do not subsidise any medication for Alzheimer's disease. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended against it, but people who suffer from Alzheimer's, particularly those in their 50s with mild Alzheimer's, can pay up to $200 a month for this medication. For people who are well off, that is probably not a problem; for people on modest incomes or pensions, it puts that medicine out of reach. So, in a sense, you have two classes of people who are stricken by the disease in this country: those whose families can do something to alleviate some of the symptoms and those whose families know they cannot provide the money to help their relation.Governments regularly say that expert bodies tell us which drugs should be available under the national health system. I think we should make a plea that the medication for Alzheimer's be reconsidered. In particular, those who are in the early stages of it at a young age should be able to get financial assistance from the government in the same way that people with other degenerative diseases can, so that they can lead a normally productive life like the rest of us do. I do not think we should see people in their 50s and 60s being put in a position where their own lives and their families' lives disappear because of it.Today, 21 September 1999, is World Alzheimer's Day and I hope that we all take some cognisance of it. (Time expired).1013022:51:0010130Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to express my concerns about the allocation of the tickets for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Back on 30 May the ticket office was opened by SOCOG with great fanfare and excitement about the forthcoming Olympics and there were advertisements on the different events and the availability of tickets. Those tickets were offered from 30 May to 16 July. Some 317,000 Australians applied for tickets. Obviously they came from all over Australia but, in the main, they were from New South Wales. I know that many thousands from my electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast feel fortunate that we are only about an hour's drive from the Olympics site at Homebush, so there is a lot of interest in my electorate of Robertson. These tickets are worth some $350 million. When those 317,000 applications were lodged, people had to pay for the tickets up-front. It was not a case of just putting in an application. So at the moment SOCOG are basically holding $350 million of our money.Many people did not have the money straight-up to write a cheque or pay cash for the tickets. For many, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity and they did not want to miss out. Therefore, they put the cost of the tickets on the credit card that was part of the promotion. They have already paid for the tickets on their credit card and are currently paying 14 or 16 per cent interest on that money, with no guarantee that they will receive any tickets for the Olympics. We were told by SOCOG that the ticket allocations would be announced in the middle of August. That was put back, we were told, because the demand was such that SOCOG were having trouble allocating all the tickets and it would take some time. Therefore, it was put back to the middle of September. I understand that there were difficulties with the allocation of the athletic events, and I am pleased that those concerns have been sorted out. If you access the Olympics site on your computer—the address is www.Sydney.Olympic.org—you will be told that the allocation of tickets is now scheduled for mid-September. Mid-September has been and gone and still there has been no allocation of these tickets. People are still paying 16 per cent interest on the amount spent on their credit card to pay for the tickets.The issue here is not just the credit card interest that people are having to pay for these tickets. Many of the tickets were bought as presents by grandparents and parents for children for special events. I had hoped to get a ticket for my son's 21st birthday, but it looks like that will come and go. Constituents have contacted me about special events for which they had hoped to purchase tickets as gifts for their families, but those occasions have been and gone. It is fairly unreasonable that the allocation of these Olympic tickets has not occurred.I appeal to SOCOG and to the people organising the allocation of Olympic tickets to make the announcements as quickly as possible so that people know whether they have got tickets to the Sydney Olympics or whether they have missed out. Then they can either submit for a second round of tickets or ask for a refund. If eventually they miss out on the tickets that they wanted and they ask for a refund, they will get their money back, but of course in the meantime SOCOG has collected the interest on the $350 million that it has been holding. The average Australian who may have put the cost of those tickets on his credit card will not get a refund for the interest that he has had to pay for several months while waiting for the decision on the Olympic tickets. I appeal to those involved to announce, as quickly as possible, the allocation of the Sydney 2000 Olympic tickets so that those people who wish to go to the Olympics know exactly what they are doing and what events they may have secured tickets for.1013122:56:0010131Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—In the very short time that I have available to me I would like to speak about a way of reducing depression. United States research has recently identified a possible treatment for depression—and that is eating more fish. The United Studies has found that countries with the highest amount of fish consumption also have the lowest rates of depression. That is very good news for my seafood electorate of Petrie. Those countries were mentioned at a recent conference in July in Melbourne. It was stated that countries such as Japan, Taiwan and Korea have the lowest rates of clinical depression. They also were the countries that have the highest consumption of fish. What is particularly good are the wild-caught fish. They are the key to anti-depressive type illnesses because they contain the wonderful properties of Omega 3 fatty acids, also referred to as Omega 3 oils. They are also good for heart conditions, so that is another reason for eating fish. If you eat fish you will have a healthy heart, as well as eliminate depression. Fred Goodwin of the George Washing ton University told the conference that the rising rates of depression in the US might also be linked to a lower rate of fish consumption.I would like to congratulate a major Queensland processor and exporter, Global Seafood Australia Ltd, which has announced its acquisition of the Scarborough fish markets. It has also announced two new board appointments. The company is increasing its output quite considerably. It has had growth rates of 30 per cent annually. It was a family company that was started in 1994 and it has had an annual revenue of $10 million over the past five years. It supplies to companies such as Coles and Bi Lo. I wish the company all the very best for the future, particularly with its acquisition of the Scarborough fish markets in my electorate of Petrie.House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices10132The following notices were given:Mr Reith to present a bill for an act to amend the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to provide enhanced protection for Australia's borders, and for related purposes.Mr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Family Law Act 1975 and other acts, and for related purposes.Answers to Questions in Writing10133The following answers to questions were circulated:10133(Question No. 717)71710133Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 7 June 1999:(1) Did he or his representative receive correspondence from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or his representatives in relation to funding of the Federation Square Project in Melbourne; if so, (a) did the letter threaten to withdraw federal funds from the project and (b) will he present the letter to the House.(2) Did he or his representatives communicate with the Victorian Government in relation to the project; if so, what advice did he or his representative provide to the Victorian Government.(3) Did he or his representative (a) make reference to the federal funding for the project or (b) raise the issue of employment conditions for workers who were likely to work on the project.(4) Did any form of the communication referred to in part (2) involve correspondence; if so, does he intend to present the correspondence to the House.(5) Did he have any communication with the Office of the Employment Advocate in relation to the project; if so, what was the nature of the communication.10133McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes(a) No(b) No(2) There have been discussions between officers of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and officers of the Victorian Department of the Premier and Cabinet about this project. A draft Grant Deed was provided to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for its consideration. No advice has been provided to the Victorian Government by me or my staff.(3) (a) The discussions took place on the basis that $50 million would be provided from the Federation Fund for the construction of the Australian Centre for the Moving Image at Federation Square, subject to a grant agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Victoria.(b) One provision of the draft Grant Deed provided to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet required that the Project complies with the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry and Industry Guidelines and that compliance with the Code and Guidelines are made a condition of tender and extended to all subcontractors, consultants and suppliers who may be engaged by the head contractor.(4) The draft Grant Deed referred to in part (2) was conveyed to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet by letter. I do not intend to present that letter to the House.(5) It is not the policy of the Government to disclose policy discussions which may or may not occur within or between government agencies or authorities. In any event, the Employment Advocate is the respondent in litigation in the Federal Court of Australia regarding the Federation Square construction project in Melbourne (CFMEU v Hamberger). It is not appropriate to answer questions about matters that may be in issue in litigation.10133(Question No. 766)76610133Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) What was the 1998-99 national recruitment target for the reservists for the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force.(2) How many reservists were recruited for the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force in 1998-99.(3) How many reservists (a) resigned, (b) transferred to the inactive reserve and (c) were dismissed from the (i) Navy, (ii) Army and (iii) Air Force reserves in 1998-99.(4) What is the 1999-2000 national recruitment target for the reservists for the (a) navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force.10133Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs; Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 149 (b) 4465 (c) 146(2) (a) 30 (b) 2281 (c) 82(3) (a) (i) 105 (ii) 2567 (iii) 108 (b) (i) 169 (ii) 828 (iii) 57 (c) (i) Nil (ii) 1661 (iii) 5Impact of Reserve Under AchievementsWhile the Australian Naval Reserve (ANR) has, in previous years, experienced under achievement in terms of allocated funds, the reported impact on the readiness of Permanent Naval Force (PNF) units has been manageable. However, the Navy has moved in the last fifteen months to redefine the role of the ANR in a context aligned with the requirements articulated by the Chief of the Defence Force. This redefinition has allowed better integration of the ANR and PNF and will define more clearly the role of the ANR for recruitment and training purposes. In the past, recruitment has lagged significantly behind the sometimes unclear roles of the ANR and inhibited its potential.As well, the enhanced redefinition and integration of the ANR will consequently result in better utilisation of the ANR in their contribution to the capability of the "Total Force" for a wider range of scenarios.ArmyThe current wastage rate of Reserve recruitment is not immediately affecting the Reserve contribution to Australian Defence Force capability, however, it may eventually if not resolved.Studies are currently underway within Defence to determine how best to address the related issues of recruitment and capability delivery. However, what is clear at this time is that there is rarely one factor that can be attributed to the overall cause.As studies into enhancing the future contribution by the Reserve to the delivery of capability have developed, it is evident that a holistic approach to the total dimension of Reserve service is warranted. It would be premature to mention specifics at this early stage, suffice to say that study outcomes are expected to propose an array of recommendations covering conditions of employment, conditions of service, remuneration, policy and legislative provisions. Air ForceThe shortfall in recruiting has had no direct impact on current operational capability. However, in anticipation on an expanded Reserve component, recruiting and training practices for all elements of the Royal Australian Air Force Active Reserve are being reviewed by Training Command (Air Force).The Directorate of Personnel Reserves—Air Force is liaising with the Office of Head Reserves Policy on tri-Service issues seeking to bring about changes to legislation leading to improved conditions of service for Reservists.(4) (a) 149 (b) 4975 (c) 190.10134(Question No. 770)77010134Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 22 June 1999:(1) Under the Staying at Home Program, did the Prime Minister undertake to transfer funds from the residential sector of dementia care to the community sector to help maintain patients in familiar surroundings; if so, what is happening with the funds.(2) Has funding been granted to an organisation in the electoral division of Capricornia to assist carers looking after dementia patients in their homes.10134Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPAged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No, the Prime Minister did not undertake to transfer funds from the residential sector of dementia care to the community sector. The 1998 $280 million Staying at Home package included $10.3 million in new funds for additional respite care services for people with dementia. As a result, 26 new services were established throughout Australia in 1998, including 4 in Queensland. These services help carers of people with dementia obtain a much-needed break. The 1999 Budget also included $82.2 million in new funds over four years to boost in-home respite for carers of people with dementia and other cognitive and behavioural disorders.(2) The Blue Nursing Service in Rockhampton provides some day care for people with dementia, allowing carers to take a break. It receives funding from the Home and Community Care Program which in Queensland is 64% funded by the Commonwealth Government through my portfolio. A number of residential aged care facilities in the region can also claim additional Commonwealth subsidies for providing residential respite care to frail older people including people with dementia. 10135(Question No. 806)80610135McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation Systemic Investigation into Factors Underlying Air Safety Occurrences in Sydney Terminal Area Airspace find that is was desirable for an independent external consultant in fatigue management to be contracted to devise a shift schedule based primarily on safety, but which also recognises the non-work commitments of controllers and the resource constraints of management.(2) If so, has a new shift schedule been devised since August 1998; if not, why not.10135Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation has advised that as a result of its systemic investigation into factors underlying air safety occurrences in Sydney Terminal Area (TMA) airspace, the Bureau issued nine recommendations. One of those recommendations related to the adequacy of the shift schedule used by the Sydney Terminal Control Unit (TCU) at that time. That recommendation stated that Airservices Australia should `consider restructuring the current roster operating in the Sydney TCU to ensure that contemporary fatigue management research translated into meaningful duty hour regulations'. In any restructure of the roster, BASI recommended that `Airservices Australia expand its absentee management program to include individuals who expose themselves to the risks of fatigue by participating in excessive amounts of overtime and/or emergency duty'. BASI did not specifically refer to the use of an external consultant.In response to that recommendation, Airservices Australia advised:`A recent review of Sydney ATS has resulted in a `spill' of all management positions and a subsequent recruitment program which will be completed by 16 November 1998 to coincide with the Airservices' Business Transformation program.The first step in this review has been to ensure that the management structure of the facility can operate effectively and that appropriate skills are available within the team. The manner in which the teams operate is the subject of a concurrent review process.In support of these reviews, a consultant has completed a wide ranging review of `supervision' within air traffic services and its application within Teams. Recommendations from these studies will be introduced into the Sydney rostering committee deliberations examining a better framework for TCU rosters. Sydney ATS management plan to introduce a revised roster in the TCU by 1 February 1999'.Airservices Australia further stated that:`It is planned that changes to the TCU roster will become effective on 1 February 1999 after staff consultation and expert opinion has been taken into account.Airservices is committed to the absentee management provisions of its EBA and has adopted a program of aggressively addressing this issue. Any revision of rosters will encompass consideration of the effects of fatigue in the workplace'.(2) Yes. Airservices advises that a new roster was introduced on 1 February 1999 and that an external consultant's advice was taken into account in development of the new roster."10135(Question No. 808)80810135McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Have previous studies on the possibility of the RAAF Base at Richmond being used as a second Sydney Airport identified that the Windsor to Richmond road and rail line are constraints for the expansion of the airport to the south.(2) Has a preliminary study been undertaken as to whether that road and that railway line could be placed underground hence opening up the potential area for expansion of that air base into the property of the Hawkesbury Agricultural College.(3) If such an expansion could occur would it make the site a more attractive proposition as a site for Sydney's second airport.10135Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The recently completed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Second Sydney Airport proposal at Badgerys Creek included a discussion of the possible use of RAAF Base Richmond as an alternative to the Badgerys Creek proposal. The Windsor to Richmond road and rail line were identified as constraints for expansion of the Richmond site to the south.(2) No detailed studies have been undertaken on the feasibility of placing the Windsor to Richmond road underground in order to expand the airport site. (3) The availability of adequate land area is only one of many factors that need to be considered in assessing the suitability of a site for the development of Sydney's second airport. The recent EIS process for the Badgerys Creek proposal demonstrates the wide range of complex issues that need to be rigorously assessed before any overall conclusions can be reached.10136(Question No. 820)82010136Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) What (a) natural and (b) cultural properties have been placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.(2) At which sessions has the World Heritage Committee placed the properties on the list.(3) At which sessions has the Committee reviewed the list.(4) Which properties have been retained on the list.10136Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTrade10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) and (2)NATURAL PROPERTIES listed In Danger:The following properties listed for their natural values were inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the following sessions of the World Heritage Committee:Name: Srebarna Nature ReserveSession: 16th Session of the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992)Country: BulgariaName: Sangay National ParkSession: 16th Session of the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992)Country: EquadorName: Mount Nimba Nature ReserveSession: 16th Session of the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992)Country: Cote D' Ivoire / GuineaName: Manas Wildlife SanctuarySession: 16th Session of the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992)Country: IndiaName: Air & Tnr Natural ReservesSession: 16th Session of the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992) Country: NigerName: Everglades National ParkSession: 17th Session of the Committee, Cartagena (11/12/1993)Country: United StatesName: Virunga National ParkSession: 18th Session of the Committee, Phuket (17/12/1994)Country: Democratic Republic of CongoName: YellowstoneSession: 19th Session of the Committee, Berlin (9/12/1995)Country: United StatesName: Simen National ParkSession: 20th Session of the Committee, Merida (7/12/1996)Country: EthiopiaName: Garamba National ParkSession: 20th Session of the Committee, Merida (7/12/1996)Country: Democratic Republic of CongoName: Rio Platano Biosphere ReserveSession: 20th Session of the Committee, Merida (7/12/1996)Country: HondurasName: Ichkeul National ParkSession: 20th Session of the Committee, Merida (7/12/1996)Country: TunisiaName: Kahuzi-Biega National ParkSession: 21st Session of the Committee, Naples (6/12/1997)Country: Democratic Republic of CongoName: Okapi Wildlife ReserveSession: 21st Session of the Committee, Naples (6/12/1997)Country: Democratic Republic of CongoName: Manovo-Gounda St. Floris National ParkSession: 21st Session of the Committee, Naples (6/12/1997)Country: Central African RepublicCULTURAL PROPERTIES listed In Danger:The following properties listed for their cultural values were inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the following sessions of the World Heritage Committee:Name: Natural & Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor Session: 3rd Session of the Committee, Luxor 26/10/1979Country: YugoslaviaName: Old City of Jerusalem & its WallsSession: 6th Session of the Committee, Paris (17/12/1982)Country: JerusalemName: Royal Palaces of AbomeySession: 9th Session of the Committee, Paris (6/12/1985)Country: BeninName: Chan Chan Archaeological ZoneSession: 10th Session of the Committee, Paris (28/11/1986)Country: PeruName: Bahla FortSession: 12th Session of the Committee, Brasilia (9/12/1988)Country: OmanName: TimbuktuSession: 14th Session of the Committee, Banff (12/12/1990)Country: MaliName: AngkorSession: 16th Sessionof the Committee, Santa Fe (14/12/1992)Country: CambodiaName: ButrintiSession: 21st Session of the Committee, Naples (6/12/1997)Country: Albania(3) The World Heritage Bureau and World Heritage Committee review the World Heritage in Danger List at each of their sessions. The Bureau usually meets twice each year (July and November/December) and the Committee once (November/December).(4) The properties retained on the World Heritage in Danger List are those listed in answer to question 1 above.10137(Question No. 822)82210137Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 9 August 1999:(1) Did the Longford Royal Commission furnish its report on 28 June 1999.(2) Has the Minister's attention been directed to passages in the report concerning the shortcomings of the fire equipment and the absence of adapters at the Esso Gas Plant accident on 25 September 1998.(3) What progress has been made since the Minister's answer to question No. 447 (Hansard , 30 March 1999, page 4785) on the project to develop an Australian Standard on the European STORZ-type coupling.10137Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. The Longford Royal Commission furnished its report on 28 June 1999.(2) I have been briefed on the high level safety management implications of the Longford Royal Commission as they apply to the Australian Offshore Safety Case Regime.(3) I have been advised that the project to develop an Australian Standard on the European STORZ-type coupling is progressing satisfactorily with the relevant Technical Committee at Standards Australia. The Technical Committee is comprised of interested groups such as users, purchasing agencies, consumers, manufacturers, suppliers, regulators, professional bodies, technical service agencies, and research bodies. The Technical Committee is currently in the detailed process of compiling a draft standard that will take into account feedback from the interested groups above. This stage involves resolving any contentious points raised and any matters requiring investigation or testing. After the Technical Committee has completed a draft standard it is made available to the public for their views and comments. It is anticipated that a draft standard will be available for Public Comment by March 2000.10137(Question No. 836)83610137Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 August 1999:(1) Has action been taken with respect to the findings and recommendations made in the 1995 Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney report Falling on deaf ears concerning noise exposure calculation methods and compensation for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA) aircraft noise; if so, what.(2) How many residences are within the 25 Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) contour shown in the Airservices Australia 1998 ANEI chart for the area surrounding KSA. (3) How many residences are within the 25 Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contour shown in the ANEF for the year 2010.(4) How many of the residences referred to in part (3) are in the electoral division of Grayndler, and how many of those (a) have been acquired, (b) have been insulated by the Sydney Airport Insulation Project, and (c) remaining residences will receive noise compensation and when will they receive compensation.10138Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. Action in response to the findings and recommendations has been taken consistent with the Government's response to the report tabled in the Senate on 14 December 1996.(2) and (3) The number of residences within the 25 ANEI (for the year 1998) or the 25 ANEF (for the year 2010) cannot be accurately established without a detailed ground survey being undertaken. I am not willing to authorise the use of resources for this purpose at this time.(4) See answer to (2) and (3) above. Within the electoral division of Grayndler as at 12 August 1999:(a) 146 residences had been acquired;(b) 1,791 residences had been insulated; and(c) 595 were still to receive insulation. Of these, 273 owners were yet to authorise the preparation of scopes of work for insulation treatment, 245 were in the negotiation/quoting stage required prior to insulation works and 77 were under construction.10138(Question No. 853)85310138Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:What proportion of the business critical systems within the Defence Housing Authority are currently assessed as being (a) Y2K compliant, (b) back online, (c) under repair or testing, and (d) under assessment.10138Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) 90%.(b) 100%—systems were not taken off line for testing.(c) 10%.(d) Nil. 10138(Question No. 861)86110138Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) How many executive assistants working in his Department are (a) permanent public servants, (b) temporary public servants, (c) temporaries supplied by Kowalski Consulting and (d) temporaries supplied by other recruitment agencies.(2) Did his Department contract Kowalski Consulting for the provision of a large number of executive assistants; if so, (a) why and (b) when (i) did the contract commence and (ii) is it due to expire.(3) What is the annual value of the contract with Kowalski Consulting and was it awarded through an open or selective tender process; if so, what were the details of the process; if not, why not.(4) What is the median period of time that the temporaries from Kowalski Consulting have held a position with his Department.(5) Are the temporaries from Kowalski Consulting employed under an award or certified agreement; if so, how do their entitlements compare with the Australian Public Service staff.10138Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Of the executive assistants working in the Department on 24 August 1999, (a) 46 are permanent public servants (b) none are temporary public servants (c) 13 are temporaries supplied by Kowalski Consulting, and (d) none are supplied by other recruitment agencies.(2) Yes, the Department contracted Kowalski Consulting to provide temporary executive assistants on an as needs basis; (a) the contract was entered into to ensure the timely and cost effective provision of a consistently high standard of temporary executive assistants (b) (i) the current contract commenced on 1 January 1999 (ii) it is due to expire 31 December 1999 but with the option of a 24 month extension for excellent service based on annual reviews.(3) The contract with Kowalski Consulting is utilised on an "as needs basis"; it does not have an annual value attributed to it. The contract was awarded following an open tender process which involved a Departmental Evaluation Panel being established to assess all tenders that were received, short list those for further consideration, conduct interviews and make a recommendation for a preferred provider. (4) The median period of time in working days for temporary executive assistants from Kowalski Consulting is 45.(5) In responding to the tender proposal, Kowalski Consulting identified the ACT Clerks Award as the minimum standard for their temporary employees. Specific details of entitlements are a matter between Kowalski Consulting and its employees.10139(Question No. 876)87610139Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 29 July 1999 reporting that the Government is proposing to divest a further $188 million worth of commercial office property in regional and metropolitan Australia.(2) Has his Department undertaken a study of the costs and benefits flowing from the further rationalisation of Commonwealth property holdings; if so, is the work available to Members of Parliament.(3) In what year will rental outgoings become a net cost to the Commonwealth, over and above the proceeds from the sale of property.(4) What are the estimates of proceeds from the property sales and rental outgoings for each year until the year referred to in part (3) is reached, and beyond.10139Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Commonwealth Property Principles adopted by the Government in 1996 state that the Commonwealth should only own property where the long-term yield rate exceeds the social opportunity cost of capital (15%), or where it is otherwise in the public interest to do so. In reviewing the commercial office estate against the Commonwealth Property Principles, the Department of Finance and Administration has undertaken financial modelling of individual assets, assessed the implications at the aggregate level, and formulated a divestment strategy accordingly. The Department discussed the issues in detail with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in November 1997 and in a submission to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in February 1998. The same rationale and methodology applies to the continuing divestment program.(3) The Commonwealth has deemed its cost of capital to be 15% (ie. the social opportunity cost of capital). The Commonwealth's decision to divest properties is based on the judgement that, over the longer term, it will continue to be cheaper to rent than hold property in Commonwealth ownership.(4) $565 million from the sale of non-Defence property will be returned to the Budget in the period 1999-2000 to 2002-03. Under performing capital currently tied up in these properties will be freed up for redeployment to more important Government priorities.10139(Question No. 877)87710139Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) In relation to his press release announcing the Commonwealth Property Strategic Alliance shortlist, (a) what selection criteria were sent to those who expressed interest in the tender, (b) what were the relative weightings attaching to each selection criterion and (c) were the weightings made known to those companies that expressed interest.(2) Were the same criteria and weightings used to select the three proponents named in his press release applied to the rest of the field.(3) Were all three tenderers selected for the short list recommended by his Department.(4) Were tenderers added to, or deleted from, the short list recommended by his Department by him or his office.(5) What experience does each of the three tenderers have in property management.10139Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) in the Property Strategic Alliance contained the following evaluation criteria.Evaluation CriteriaCriterion TypeCorporate Capability and CapacityWeightedConduct of ServiceWeightedPast PerformanceWeightedFinancial ViabilityMandatoryConflict of InterestMandatory(b) Clause 7.2 to the REOI stated inter alia that:"Inability to satisfy either of the mandatory criteria will result in no further consideration being given to a Response.The remaining criteria have been weighted in the following descending order of importance:. conduct of service;. corporate capability and capacity; and. past performance."(c) Addendum No 1, inserting Clause 7.2, to the REOI, was issued to all Respondents on 1 July 1999.(2) Yes.(3) The Department of Finance and Administration evaluated the fourteen responses to the REOI, with assistance from an independent expert, and selected the three successful organisations that make up the short list.(4) No, the Department's choice was not modified by me or my office.(5) A summary of the experience in property management of the three shortlisted organisations follows:(a) Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Limited and Jones Lang LaSalle Australia Pty Limited in a joint venture company:-have collaborated previously in property management joint venture assignments and maintain an extensive global presence. The combined organisations employ 11,000 staff in 100 cities and 39 countries around the world. The organisation's functions cover investment management, endowment portfolio management, asset and property management with relevant achievements in portfolio performance.(b) PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)—(including Knight Frank Australia Pty Ltd and KFPW Pty Limited):-PwC is the largest professional services firm in the world employing approximately 155,000 staff in 150 countries. Knight Frank is a substantial property services firm providing agency, asset and real estate services in 27 countries with 600 offices worldwide. (c) Leighton Properties Pty Ltd and CB Richard Ellis in a joint venture company to be known as Universal Portfolio Services Pty Ltd.:Leighton Properties Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of Leighton Holdings Ltd, a listed Australian public company, with annual turnover exceeding $3 billion and employing approximately 11,000 staff in 26 offices in Australia and overseas with principle activity being building and construction management. CB Richard Ellis is a global real estate service firm employing over 10,000 employees in 230 offices in 30 countries.10140(Question No. 879)87910140Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 25 August 1999:(1) Will the maritime seaphone service be discontinued in 2001.(2) Will the listening service for high frequency maritime distress voice traffic be discontinued in 2000.(3) Has consultation occurred with users in respect of the future of the services referred to in parts (1) and (2); if so, what.(4) Are alternative arrangements for the services proposed; if so, what.(5) Is the Government acting on advice with respect to the services; if so, from whom.(6) Will the closure of the (a) seaphone service and (b) listening service for high frequency distress voice traffic affect maritime safety, if so, how.10140Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)—(6) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has advised that this issue is a matter for the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.I note that the honourable member has also asked this question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Notice Paper No. 58, P. 2822, 25 August 1999). 10141(Question No. 880)88010141Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice on 25 August 1999:(1) Will the maritime Sea Phone service be discontinued in 2001.(2) Will the listening service for high frequency maritime distress voice traffic be discontinued in 2000.(3) Has consultation occurred with users in respect of the future of the services referred to in parts (1) and (2); if so, what.(4) Are alternative arrangements for the services proposed; if so, what.(5) Is the Government acting on advice with respect to the services; if so, what.(6) Will the closure of the (a) sea phone service and (b) listening service for high frequency distress voice traffic affect maritime safety, if so, how.10141McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPArts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Telstra has not made a commercial decision as to the future of the Sea Phone service at this point in time.(2) AMSA has a contractual arrangement with Telstra for high frequency maritime distress voice traffic (HFMDVT) services until 30 June 2002.(3) No. See answers to questions (1) and (2).(4) No.(5) Telstra's Board and management are responsible for commercial decisions made in relation to the Sea Phone service, not the Government. AMSA advises the Minister for Transport and Regional Development on issues that may arise in relation to HFMDVT services.(6) See answers to questions (1) and (2).10142(Question No. 886)88610142McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1999:(1) What percentage of flights (a) taking off from and (b) landing on the east-west runway over the electoral division of Barton between 1 January to 26 August 1999 have been between (i) 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. and (ii) 6 a.m. and 7 a.m.(2) To what extent were flights during those hours considered in the calculation of the Australian Noise Exposure Index applicable for the western end of the east-west runway.10142Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The most recent consolidated information on runway movement available is for the period 1 January 1999 to 31 July 1999. This information indicates that during that period:(a) 6.3% of the take-offs and 21.3% of the landings over Barton, associated with the east-west runway, occurred between 9pm and 11pm; and(b) 12.4% of the take-offs and 1.6% of the landings over Barton, associated with the east-west runway, occurred between 6am and 7am.(2) The most recent Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) published for Sydney Airport covers the period 1 January 1999 to 31 March 1999. All flights at the Airport during that period were taken into account in the production of the ANEI. All flights between 7pm and 7am are given a night-time weighting in the ANEI.