Mr SINCLAIR(11.48 a.m.) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick. It is a pleasure to see you there. Let me say that I still worry about the functioning of this Main Committee, and I think today's debate illustrates that. There are about two men and a dog here, and none of the ministers, and none of the departmental officials. We have a series of reports dealing with what I regard as fairly significant public policy issues. While I enjoy the opportunity of being able to talk, which is often denied us in the other chamber, in the function of this committee when we have reports such as the ones we are dealing with today, it is a pity that we cannot make a more meaningful use of the relationship of parliament which is designed to provide ministers in government and members an ongoing contact. I worry that we get ourselves too much involved in the thought that just because we produce reports, they are actually going to have any consequence.

May I say to you now that you are in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, that when you were in your other role talking to the motion, many of your comments echoed my own concerns. It began, of course, with the observation that you made that the Sir Humphrey-like response of the government to the recommendations of the committee rather suggested that they patted us on the head and said, `Yes. It is very good to consider those issues. We are glad to know that somebody is considering them. But the Treasurer has not given us the money for one reason or another, and we have not been able to proceed to adopt them.'

I know there is only one of these recommendations to which they have specifically said no, but instead of saying yes to the others they have added some sort of qualification to most. As one who is worried about where we go in our relationship with the African continent, I think it is important we are more than half-hearted by saying there are things we can do.

The one recommendation that the government has rejected is recommendation 18, that we participate in the Zimbabwe international trade fair this year and next year. I am not sure where we go with expos and international trade fairs but I must admit I have been involved with a few. We took some pretty brave decisions in the past to become involved in expos, and with some of them we wondered whether we were going to get a particular benefit.

Those of us who visited the Brisbane Expo will know what an extraordinary event it was. In this instance, Zimbabwe is a country which is trying hard to establish its presence and its trade contacts. It seems to me that there are ways by which you can participate without its costing a fortune and yet it can bring reasonable benefits.

Having read the government's reasons, it seems to me that the `no' men of the government are saying, `I'm sorry, we haven't got the dough so let's forget it.' Instead of trying to find ways to do things, they are finding reasons why they cannot be done. Frankly, that is not good enough. The reason the government gives in its October response is a bit trite. It says:

The Australian business community values the participation of Austrade in trade displays in South Africa.

That is what Austrade is for. Austrade has the capacity to muster a number of parties in order that they can collectively make a presentation. Further on the comment is made:

. . . it is noted that the Zimbex Trade Fair in Harare is competing with the Zimbabwe International Trade Fair to become the premium trade display in Zimbabwe.

I do not mind which one we go to but I do think we have to be very precise in working with our business community in trying to promote who we are and where we are.

Keep in mind that the report to which this is a response, Australia's relations with Southern Africa, is a report that is directed to a group of countries where there is the most significant growth in trade in the world. People say, `We have so much trade with South Africa because we have the same economies. Even though politics kept us apart, now that apartheid has ended we are able to trade more freely and liberally and therefore we are in a position to go ahead.' Frankly, there is a lot more to it than that. That is why this report tried to pick up what we see as both a political and a commercial attempt to improve our relationship.

In addressing the report I should again pay credit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it was due to your initiative that the report began under your chairmanship. As one who looked at Africa when the recommendation was made, I too shared some of the cynicism that comes from of the government's response. When you look at the nations of Africa, for years the Europeans dominated them. What happened in Africa was a classic illustration of the aftermath of European colonialism. The Europeans did not have the interests of those countries at heart but rather what could be done to advance the economic interests of the Europeans. It has taken considerable time for these African countries to get to the stage of being able to look more positively to the future.

There were so many countries to look at that we cut it down to the SADC countries. By putting the SADC countries together we were able to focus on the fact that there is, if anything, a remarkable transformation occurring in those countries.

We are now proceeding towards an era when we have a better chance of seeing an advancement in those political qualities to which I referred a while ago—democratic institutions, the advance of human rights, the maintenance of the rule of law and a freedom of press. We also have a reasonable opportunity of advancing our political and economic interests together.

Another recommendation that I feel quite strongly about, and again I share the views of the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), concerns our diplomatic representation in Africa. We really are not doing well enough. Kerry Sibraa, the former President of the Senate, is our present ambassador. For all that he comes from the other side of politics from me, I believe he has done an excellent job in representing us at seven posts. It is an extraordinary charge. He represents us to seven countries, all of which are different, most of which are underdeveloped, all of which have political institutions that are fairly fragile and really do need a bit of TLC. He has done a very good job. But having one person in one post—certainly with some professional assistance—means that we are not sufficiently addressing the problems of southern Africa.

Perhaps that goes to the core of my concern about this response. I know that this report does not deal with the structure and management of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade but it seems to me that, if anything, the report reflects that the department does need to be concerned about itself. Perhaps we ought to have an inquiry into the department and see whether or not there are ways by which we could improve its management.

I regard Australia's foreign policy as a very important part of looking at the standards of living of Australians. Our foreign policy is not there to promote Australia in the direct sense—because our foreign relationships involve many other issues—it is there to protect our interests, to advance our interests and to advance our understanding. It is there to help other countries develop to the point where they are not likely to be a security threat, where their economic advancement enables them to be self-sufficient, where they are not going to be continually dependent on overseas aid and where they can make their own contribution towards the stability of the world system. Those are all very grandiose ideas.

The foreign office has progressively changed its priorities—we all accept our priority is for Asia—but, as it has done so, we have reduced significantly our presence in a number of regions of the world, and one of them is southern Africa. I am sorry that, in this response, while the government has given this agreement in principle, it all seems to be predicated on the fact that the money is not there. Therefore, it is not going to be possible to provide the financial resources needed to maintain the level of diplomatic and trade representation in southern Africa that I believe is necessary.

There are ways by which you can get an extension of resources. The department at the moment is looking at one-person posts. I do not like that idea. I think it would be far better to provide at least two people to represent Australian interests—that is, two Australian-based staff in any post. Secondly, we can have a look at ways by which we can share overseas posts, which I know we are now doing with Canada. I have seen the current post in Vietnam which seems to work quite well: there, the Canadians share our post; in other places, I gather we share the Canadian posts.

I am not too sure whether that might be a way that we can work in southern Africa. That does not mean that we subordinate our national interest to Canada or to any other country. But it does mean that, in the one facility, you can provide your own Australian national identity and you can promote your Australian views. I think that is fairly important because there are enormous economic opportunities in southern Africa, and we have very real political interests in southern Africa. I think that we need to have in mind that, just as we look today at the Pacific as the area of growth for all those economic tigers—albeit going through some economic difficulty—the growth in the Indian Ocean region offers the same potential for the future as I believe we have been able to gain from the Pacific over the past two decades. I am sorry that, in this response, the government has perhaps not seen those opportunities that are there.

In this response, while the government accepted a number of recommendations that we have made, they have said they are the subject of the Simons review. We have talked about the Simons review earlier in this chamber today. I hope that, having now pronounced where we are going on the Simons review, they will revisit the recommendations we have made and pick them up and provide the resources necessary. For example, recommendation No. 8 states:

AusAID, in conjunction with Southern African authorities, consider including provision of some legal education and training, and assistance to establish legal resource centres, as part of the official development assistance program.

To that the government said that they agreed with the recommendation in principle, subject to the government's consideration of the Simons review recommendations and funding availability.

The point of that is to try and help those countries to govern themselves, to put in place better democratic institutions and, as I keep on saying, to promote the rule of law and to get over the problems which saw Australian soldiers serving in Somalia. While Somalia is out of the region, the point is that if you can promote these countries to look after themselves, you are going to avoid what, to my mind, is a regrettable alternative to establishing those principles by sending military force—even though in Somalia it was a United Nations peacekeeping force. Essentially, it is far better providing legal resources and aid to help these countries to help themselves than it is to have to send in the Australian Defence Force to do so as part of a peacekeeping mission.

There are a number of these other recommendations. I have mentioned the extent to which I believe we need more diplomatic representation, I have mentioned the degree to which I think there are trade opportunities there that need to be promoted, and I do not think the government has accepted those to a sufficient degree. In all, the problem that I see in this response is that the priority given to southern Africa at this stage is really predicated more on a financial dictate than it is on a foreign policy priority. I think that is regrettable. I think we do have reason to try to find ways by which we can do a lot more than we are to promote our interests with these countries.

The only other recommendation I want to refer to is recommendation No. 24. We recommended that we try to develop, with the South African and Zimbabwe governments, a memorandum of understanding on tourism cooperation. We developed the argument in the report; I will not go back to it now. We have been told that the government agrees to it, but it is not going to be pursued under current circumstances. I think that tourism cooperation is essential if we are going to take advantage of new tourist opportunities in the future. We are, each of us, at one end of the tourist track—southern Africa in the African sense, and Australia in the Pacific sense—and by cooperating in this way, we could advance our own trade and our tourism opportunities.

In all, I found the government's response less than adequate. I am disappointed they have not taken more seriously the recommendations we made in our report on Australia's relations with southern Africa. And where they have responded, they have done so with qualifications. I hope they will revisit our recommendations because I believe they are in Australia's best long-term interests.

Debate (on motion by Mr Sawford) adjourned.