Mr REITH (Minister for Industrial Relations)(4.02 p.m.) —I thought the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) said it rather well—perhaps it was a slip of the tongue—when during his contribution he said words to the effect that in all these years in this House you do not see many genuine, decent, substantial motions of censure. How true he was. In fact, this is yet another example of a censure motion which lacks substance.

For those who might be listening to this debate at home, it would be fair for them to ask themselves what all the brouhaha is about. In very simple terms, yesterday's censure motion was on the rather flimsy basis that a letter from a vice minister from the Chinese government was equivalent to a ministerial representation when in fact the vice minister's equivalent status in Australia is that of a deputy secretary—so clearly not a ministerial matter. But, when you are desperate for a line, that is sufficient to mount a censure motion. When you have had a few years in opposition, which this tactic suggests you will have, you might then appreciate that if you are going to run a censure motion you really need to have some substance to it. That was yesterday's motion disposed of.

Today's censure motion is just as flimsy as yesterday's. Today's motion is really based on some allegation about when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) may have examined material about conversations and discussions he had had with certain senior members of the Indonesian government. As the minister has said, he did not examine that material until after question time. As the Hansard record shows, he came into the House last night and made a full statement as to the circumstances of those conversations and discussions and made the position very clear.

If the opposition had any sense of reality and there was any sense of substance to these propositions, quite frankly that would have finished the matter there and then. But so short are they of argument that they have mounted yet another censure motion. What is interesting is, so inexperienced is the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), that the only damage to come out of this is the collateral damage to our relationship with the Chinese government, in particular the embassy, by the unfounded and false allegation that the Chinese government had leaked material.

They are quite entitled to be unhappy about the allegation made by the shadow minister for foreign affairs, the member for Kingsford-Smith, who said only yesterday in this House in one of his questions, which would be better described as a speech:

Can I conclude by asking: what is the minister's response to the fact that the letters exchanged between the minister and the vice-minister of the Chinese ministry of foreign trade and economic cooperation concerning DIFF were actually leaked by the Chinese embassy in Canberra on the day after your answer last Tuesday?

That is the most substantial of the issues which have arisen in the debate we had yesterday and the debate we are having today. It follows a course which must now be familiar to the Minister for Foreign Affairs—that is, his job is basically to clean up the mess left by the previous government, the damage caused by the previous government, and the damage they are still continuing. So expert are they at incompetence that their incompetence has extended into opposition and we have this unfounded, false and unreasonable allegation made against the Chinese representatives in Canberra.

For that reason the amendment ought to be carried by the House—I confidently predict that it will be—and I think that would be a fair outcome and a fair adjudication of the issues. The fact is that the shadow minister should be condemned for making such an allegation against the Chinese embassy. As I say, it is a pattern of conduct familiar to the minister because he has had to clean up the opposition's incompetence and the damage done to Australia's relations with so many others in our region.

I am sure many members will remember the unfortunate damage done to the Australia-Malaysia relationship by the previous Prime Minister in his personal remarks about the current Prime Minister of Malaysia. He then had the gall to say during the election campaign that the coalition parties would have difficulty maintaining and establishing good relations with our neighbours. It was simply a matter of weeks that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was able to initiate high level meetings between the two Prime Ministers and set that relationship on a sound footing. We on this side welcome a sound footing with our Asian neighbours, the Malaysians in particular, with whom we have had a good, substantial relationship over a very long period.

I congratulate the minister on that early success of his in the foreign affairs portfolio. Likewise, in our relationship with New Zealand. The opposition is talking about the importance of our relationship with our neighbours. They are talking about it, doing some collateral damage as they go, but the fact of the matter is that the one person in this parliament who has actually had to take the initiative to rebuild our relationships is none other than the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I congratulate him on his rebuilding of not only our relationship with Malaysia—which must be a matter of great embarrassment to members on the other side—but also our relationship with the New Zealanders, which was done irreparable damage by the clumsy handling of the shadow minister at the table. Those are just two of the early successes of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

His record shows that in the early months of his time as the minister he has notched up a number of successes in the Australian national interest. For example, in respect of the issue of land mines he has delivered support for the international ban on production, sale and distribution of landmines and suspension on Australian use of landmines, which is something the previous government was unable to achieve, and has established the free Indo-China of landmines program, with a $12 million initiative. Also, in his first visit to Jakarta—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr REITH —Yes, sure. I will say something about that in a moment, if you can contain your party political interest in the matter. In the national interest, the minister has established a good working relationship with the foreign minister of Indonesia. That is very important to Australia's interests. He raised the sensitive East Timor issue consistently and firmly. Very importantly, and it will be welcomed by many Australians, he won a concession from the Indonesians about the need for true productions.

He has also had a very successful visit to Singapore, which has been indicated by the declaration of Singaporean support for Australian membership of ASEM, and he won wide support in the reporting of his trip to Indonesia. That is very important in the national interest.

Mr Brereton —This is pathetic. I think you should hand it back.

Mr O'Keefe interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kingsford-Smith is stretching my patience, as is the member for Burke.

Mr O'Keefe —I withdraw.

Mr REITH —These are all matters of great mirth and jocularity for those on the other side. That is no surprise to us. This whole issue, the censure motion and the questions we had in question time are simply a portrayal of their lack of interest in these very significant issues. You think it is a political point. I say genuinely, in the national interest, that the truth of the matter is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has notched up some successful outcomes in his period. That ought to be widely welcomed as well as recognised.

The DIFF program was the subject of an election policy, and that policy made it quite clear that we would not proceed with that program.

Mr O'Keefe —Then why has he lied?

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Burke will withdraw that unparliamentary comment; and I warn him.

Mr O'Keefe —I withdraw.

Mr REITH —In addressing Australia's massive $8 billion black hole, which we inherited from the previous government, obviously a lot of hard decisions have had to be made. In regard to the aid issue, we had a choice to make: a choice between cutting back some parts of the program as opposed to others.

One of the options would have been to cut back further on humanitarian aid. But we have made a choice not to do so and to make a choice in regard to that aspect of the aid program which in particular delivers and is relevant to the Australian business community.

In response to that pre-election commitment, and in the implementation of that policy since the election, there has been some criticism. Of course there has been. There are some Australian companies which have benefited from that program in the past, and they would like that program to continue. It is true that in the region there are some who would likewise like that project and that program to continue. Representations at various levels have been made to that effect. But, in any fair analysis, the representations that have been made and the criticisms that have been levelled are very much at the margin.

It is really stretching a long bow to suggest that these issues in some way go to the substance of our relations with those in our region. I do not think that even the shadow minister—incompetent as he might be; if only you could get him aside and get some sense out of him—would attempt to claim otherwise.

I should add that the Australian community, particularly those from non-government organisations, have been very critical of the DIFF program over the years. That just reflects the fact that there is a balance of opinion about the DIFF program.

It is no surprise that the opposition would recoil at the fact that the government might continue with a commitment that it gave prior to an election. Their history shows that the commitments they made prior to elections, particularly prior to the 1993 election, were commitments that they then immediately broke.

The more general point I want to make is that the minister in this particular case has made a very clean breast of the situation. In fact, during question time he said that he had checked the record further, and he came in last night and said that this was the situation and this was the advice that he has been given. He has been totally open about it.

I find it absolutely amazing that these people have moved a censure motion after we have witnessed the low and the poor—in fact, the non-existent—ministerial standards exhibited by them for years and years when they were in government. One example that comes to mind is the standards exhibited by the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence). It would not be parliamentary for me to hold up an extract from the West Australian of 19 November 1995. The fact is that that minister was shown to have not told the truth. That was adjudicated by an independent royal commission. When we called for her resignation, there was no prospect of you upholding ministerial standards.

When it comes to ministerial competence, we on this side find it a bit galling to get a diatribe from the member for Kingsford-Smith. He is the man who, for example, introduced the unfair dismissal law, based on an ILO convention, which has been one of the great fiascos of industrial relations law, and perhaps the highpoint of his incompetence, but backed up by a series of blunders as a minister, which I am sure many members will remember: the single aviation market with New Zealand, the Monarch Seaview disaster, the claim that you could not give ANL away, which was the subject of a series of censure motions, of course totally disregarded by the other side.

In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that yesterday's censure motion was about the status of a letter from a deputy secretary; today's censure motion is about when the minister examined material. The fact is that he examined material after question time and he came into the House last night. The fact is that your ministers never reached such standards in the whole 13 years you were in government. As has now transpired, collateral damage has been done and the shadow minister ought to be censured. (Time expired)

Mr Beazley —If you're going to move the gag, move it quick!

Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

   Question put:

   That the amendment (Mr Downer's ) be agreed to.