Mr BEAZLEY —My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Is it not a fact that many major multi national companies have been encouraged to set up their regional headquarters in Australia as a result of government encouragement and promotion? Is he aware that the former government's regional headquarters program, which this government gutted in the budget, encouraged 92 new regional headquarters to be set up in Australia since 1993, attracting an estimated $2 billion in investment and at least 9,000 jobs? In the light of this, I ask him whether he endorses the Prime Minister's comments in Jakarta:

Neither do I see Australia as a bridge between Asia and the West as is sometimes suggested.

I ask the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade whether he is similarly willing to dismiss, with a wave of the hand, a central role for Australia in the growing inter-bloc trade between Asia and the West, a role that can clearly create and already has created thousands of jobs for Australians?

Mr TIM FISCHER —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his timely question. I express a regret that the poor old shadow minister for trade gets squeezed out by these big bullies down the centre, as does the shadow minister for tourism. There is one dead hole seat in this House and I know where it is: it is on that end of the front bench under the lee of the press gallery, out of sight and out of mind. Why won't they give you a go, Stephen?

I am very happy whenever ministers of the Australian coalition government go abroad. When the Prime Minister goes abroad he goes to represent Australia's interests, first and foremost, not Asia's interests in Europe, not Europe's interests in Asia, but Australia's interests. It is in that context that I support the Prime Minister's comments that Australia cannot be a bridge to Asia in a cultural or political sense.

But in relation to the economic linkages, business operations and trade and investment, it is absolute that we want to maximise the connection in every direction. We will do that as a consequence of a range of decisions we have already taken. I happily confirm the policy partly alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition but released under `Meeting the challenges', the Liberal and National Party trade strategies for the future, which said:

We will promote Australia to the European Union and to the United Kingdom, in particular, as a bridge to the Asia-Pacific region and, therefore, as a solid base for EU trade and investment, separate from a cultural bridge. Especially, we intend to enhance Australia's attractiveness as a financial centre and as a base for the location of regional headquarters in the Asia-Pacific.

So there is no difference between the thrust of your question and the policy of the previous government—but one, perhaps, and I will come back to that—and the policy of this government. Indeed, it was when the Minister for Finance was Premier of New South Wales that a great deal of progress was made with regard to the Cathay Pacific headquarters in Sydney, a very good example of that type of important economic development.

I would like to point out to members of the opposition that there is one area of practice in which we differ in respect of visits to Asia by Prime Ministers. You might remember that Prime Minister Keating was on Indonesian soil when he sought to rewrite the constitution and redesign our flag. Our Prime Minister will never, ever do that.