Mr BRERETON(3.06 p.m.) —I move:

That this House censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for:

(1) having wilfully misled the House and the Australian people in his statement on 18 June concerning regional responses to the axing of the Development Import Finance Facility; and

(2) having demonstrated by his disgraceful action that he is not fit to hold the high office of Minister for Foreign Affairs.

As all members of the House will be aware, the most solemn duty imposed upon a minister of the Crown under the Westminster system is to be truthful and to be candid to the parliament and to the country. These were the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) himself when, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, nearly 13 years ago he moved the first motion of censure against a minister in the then Labor government. The Prime Minister reaffirmed that appropriately high standard when on 2 April this year he issued guidelines on ministerial responsibility which include the vitally important rule:

Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the parliament or the public. Any—

and this is terribly important—

misconception caused inadvertently should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

It is in the light of the evidence that has come to hand that I have moved this very serious censure motion this afternoon—the first censure motion the opposition has moved against the government. Our attitude has been that we should not be moving, as they did, censure motion after censure motion; that it should be reserved for the most serious of cases. We determined that only when there was absolute evidence in a very clear case would we use this in the parliament. But the charge of misleading parliament is one of the most grave that can be levelled against any minister. It is not a charge that should be made lightly—and we do not do so.

There is an additional, crucial dimension in this particular case. The subject of this motion is the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer)—the man who represents our country overseas; the man who is indeed the diplomatic face of Australia; the man who speaks on behalf of our nation at international fora; the man whose word must be absolutely believable to our friends and to our neighbours.

What we have before us today is an open and shut case. There are no ifs; there are no buts. There is no opportunity to wriggle off the hook. The facts speak for themselves. Last Tuesday I asked a perfectly straightforward question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I asked him whether he could confirm that China, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam had all made official protests against the government decision to axe development projects to be funded by the DIFF scheme.

I pointed out in that question last Tuesday that the Chinese ambassador in Canberra had stated publicly that the axing of DIFF would `do no good to the Australian side in terms of our credibility and business interests'. I asked whether it was not the case that the Chinese government had made at least four representations at vice ministerial level. That was my question. The foreign minister's reply was—what can I say?—the reply of a petulant schoolboy.

It is not just the tone of his performance last Tuesday that is a problem. We now have in a foreign minister someone who is an embarrassment to this House and, worse still, someone charged with the responsibility of representing our nation overseas.

Government members interjecting—

Mr BRERETON —No, that is not what is before us today. The issue is what he said in answer to that question. He said, in his contemptuous dismissal, that there had been no repeated protests at a ministerial level. Indeed, he dismissed out of hand the question of Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines or even China having protested about DIFF. He told the House—and it is very important that we go to his specific words:

The fact is that of course some officials—

and today he is equating officials with vice ministers, and my question was about vice ministers—

who are involved in the details of these programs have raised issues of these programs with my department, and you would not expect otherwise.

But—

and these are the words that hang him—

if this was a serious issue in our relationships they would raise it at the ministerial level.

They were the minister's words. He went on to say:

They would be writing me letters.

Opposition members interjecting—They were!

They would be expressing their concerns to me.

Then he said this:

There has been not one raised.

Mr Crean —That is not true.

Mr BRERETON —I will say it is not true. They were his words:

They would be writing me letters. They would be expressing their concerns to me. There has been not one raised.

With those words, the foreign minister flagrantly and disgracefully misled this House.

The facts are these: on 24 April Sun Zhenyu, the vice minister of the Chinese ministry MOFTEC, wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, Madam Wu Yi, a key minister in the Chinese government, and one whom we all know and respect immensely.

Mrs Crosio —A very, very nice person.

Mr BRERETON —They wrote to congratulate the foreign minister on his appointment. You will remember that I am sure, foreign minister. Do you remember the letter of congratulations? I am sure that you tucked it away, a file copy of it for your memoirs. Maybe you did not. After all, the Chinese did not waste much time on pleasantries when they wrote on 24 April. No, no, no; not at all. The vice minister got straight down to business when he said:

We now send this letter to you regarding the DIFF program matter.

Mr Leo McLeay —`We'? `We sent'!

Mr BRERETON —`We', yes. He is writing on behalf of Minister Wu and himself. Mr Speaker, I am reading from a translation of the vice minister's letter. But I have checked it, and I am assured that it is a very good translation, one that captures the essential nuance of the letter. It is a good translation from exactly the document that the minister held in his hands when he read the views of the Chinese government. He read them and he responded to them on 29 May.

Let us look at what the Chinese government had to say. I know all honourable members should listen very carefully to the words of the vice minister, writing on behalf of the Chinese minister of MOFTEC, who said:

There has been Sino Australian Government soft loan cooperation initiated since 1988. In the past few years with effort by both governments this cooperation has gradually expanded and achieved satisfactory results. Up until now the joint cooperative soft loan projects total over 60 with the turnover reaching US $540 million. The completion of these projects has reinforced our infrastructure establishment and environmental protection and the living standards of the poor areas of our country have been improved, positive effects have been produced.

The letter refers to the fact that DIFF has assisted Australian exporters to enter the Chinese market and that the scheme has proved beneficial to both countries. The vice minister's letter goes on:

For a long time AusAID has established a relationship of cooperation with my Ministry and that assured soft loan projects would be completed smoothly. But recently AusAID has been waiting for the new Government's policy that withhold the normal operations of soft loan projects, and for this we express our strong concern.

These people are not mincing words. This is right to the point. This is central to the whole DIFF debate. `We express our strong concern'—that is what the Chinese government had to say. That is what they said directly, that is what they said in writing to you as foreign minister for Australia. What did you say to the House last week? You said:

But if this was a serious issue in our relationships they would raise it at the ministerial level. They would be writing me letters. They would be expressing their concerns to me. There has been not one raised.

The vice minister's letter continued:

Because both sides on the agreed projects have invested a lot of man hours and capital if those projects cannot be started by the 30th of June this year it will cause the project companies on both sides a substantial financial loss.

That is what the Chinese government had to say to us. I believe that they said—you can understand this from the China side—that these companies taking these projects cannot wait any longer for uncertainties.

Some of those projects might have to be forced to seek the technology and equipment from other countries, particularly at the moment as Australian soft loan future is unclear.

The Chinese government said:

For the above stated reasons I hope your Government will give continuous support with the agreed listed projects so these projects can be executed on time.

They enclosed a list of the multitude of projects that were covered under the DIFF scheme.

It is little wonder that the Chinese government was enraged when the minister stood here in the parliament this week and said that no such representations had been made. So enraged were they that within 24 hours they had taken action to expose the minister's deceit. What an absolutely extraordinary state of affairs. Can you believe that this is happening so soon in the life of this government?

What does it say about the government's commitment to further develop our nation's engagement in Asia? Why did the minister do this? I think the answer is simple: his policy is indefensible. The axing of DIFF has been universally condemned. It has been condemned by Australian business organisations. It has been condemned by overseas aid organisations. It has been condemned by all our neighbouring governments. As one leading foreign policy commentator has described it, the decision is just `dumb, dumb, dumb'.

Mr Downer —Ah, we were waiting for this!

Mr BRERETON —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made no serious attempt to defend the merits of his decision. Instead, last week he and his parliamentary secretary first sought to shamelessly and disgracefully attack the integrity of a leading and authoritative critic of the decision, that is, Richard Woolcott.

Mr Downer —You are a liar. I never said that.

Mr BRERETON —Yes, you did. You gave him a serve. Of course you did.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Minister, withdraw.

Mr Downer —Yes, I withdraw.

Mr BRERETON —That, however, was not enough. What the Minister for Foreign Affairs then did was brazenly and disgracefully deceive this House. I ask that the minister withdraw that comment.

Mr SPEAKER —The minister will withdraw.

Mr Downer —I said it.

Mr BRERETON —What the Minister for Foreign Affairs then did was to brazenly and disgracefully deceive this House about the strength of the regional response to the decision, to mislead this House about one fundamental issue, that is, his dealings on our behalf with foreign governments. That is what he stood here in the parliament and did in this chamber last week.

The question that must be asked now is whether this man is fit to hold the high office of Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether he is a fit and proper person to represent our nation in our dealings with the region and the wider world. The answer to that question can only be a resounding no. No, he is not up to it. No, he is not fit for it.

I said this before and I repeat it now: this is an open and shut case. The minister has misled the parliament. In doing so, he has dealt a grave blow to public confidence in his government. This is in every sense a hanging offence. The 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, as quoted at page 88 of the House of Representatives Practice, says:

In cases where the minister has misled parliament, condoned or authorised a blatantly unreasonable use of executive power or, more vaguely, where the minister's behaviour contravenes established standards of morality, resignation or dismissal is the appropriate action.

Those are the rules, the rules that we all operate under. They are the rules that were drummed into all of us who have had the high honour of serving in a ministerial capacity.

Mr Downer —Why didn't you resign then?

Mr BRERETON —Let there be absolutely no doubt about it: the minister has deceived this parliament. This is a minister who has deceived the Australian people. This is a minister who must resign. This is a minister who has got to go. If he is not prepared to go, the Prime Minister must sack him or, to use the words of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Costello) on another occasion, he will forever wear the stain of shame that he was one who undermined the most fundamen tal principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy—

Mr Downer —Westminster!

Mr BRERETON —The principle that a minister must account to the parliament; the principle that, whatever else, a minister must never mislead the parliament. I have had the honour of serving in a ministerial capacity in two parliaments in Australia. The first lesson that was read to me by the then Premier of New South Wales many, many years ago—

Mr Downer —Why didn't you listen to it?

Mr BRERETON —It was, `You don't have to answer the question in any way other than you see fit, but you must never tell a lie.' That is what the Premier said: `You must never mislead the parliament knowingly—or, indeed, unknowingly—because that is a hanging offence. In respect of an opportunity where you mislead the parliament unknowingly, you must take immediate steps to come to the parliament to rectify the situation, to set the record straight.'

What we have seen from the minister today, unbelievably—having shot himself between the eyes—is him destroying his only potential defence. He has admitted here in question time, too smart by half again, that he checked his answer and his officers told him what had occurred, told him that he had misinformed the parliament. But he did not come into this chamber and correct the record. Why, I ask the House, did he not do so?

Mr Beddall —Arrogance.

Mr BRERETON —Was it arrogance, or was it to do with the fact that his parliamentary secretary, within a few minutes of his misleading the parliament, elaborated on the minister's earlier reference to Richard Woolcott and said that he challenged Richard Woolcott's integrity. Was that the reason that you did not come into the parliament and correct the record? Or was it the fact that you were bogged down, denying that you recalled anything of the public controversy in 1992 about the leaked report from 1988 of Miles Kupa, which your ministerial colleague in the other place, Senator Hill, said would do Australia grave damage and bring grave offence in Indonesia. This is at the time that you were the shadow minister for trade, working in the same area. Were they the two reasons you did not come into the parliament and correct the record? We will, perhaps, never know.

I say to the House: there is no alternative in this situation. The Prime Minister has to sack this foreign minister if he is not prepared to go. If the Prime Minister does not sack him, for whatever reason, it will be an appalling abrogation of the standards to which he professes to adhere, the standards that he made such great play of in the lead-up to the last election and immediately after the election, the standards that the government set itself. If the Prime Minister does not sack him, it will mean that ministers will be above reproach for their conduct and for all their statements in this House. That is a totally unacceptable situation under the Westminster system. It will give Mr Speaker a green light from here on for ministers to mislead this parliament, and to do so with impunity. That is what a failure to dismiss this minister will mean. It will mean that, on simple matters of fact, ministers will be able to stand up in this parliament and say that black is white and that white is black, and they will be allowed to get away with it.

If that ever becomes permissible, this House may as well forget about question time. We may as well forget about the Westminster system. We may as well forget about the system and its standards that we cherish. It will become a sham, and the Prime Minister will wear the stain of shame for the rest of his prime ministership.

Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded?

Mr Beazley —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.