Mr KERR (4:43 PM) —I commence my comments today by mentioning that on Friday night I attended the annual dinner of the Glenorchy State School Old Scholars Football Club, which was part of a function of the Glenorchy Football Club preparing for their grand final. I do so because it puts in context what I want to say, because two things happened on that night. Firstly, the guest speaker could not come because the Ansett dispute meant they were unable to arrive in Tasmania. Secondly, I had the occasion to sit next to many people, many of them World War II veterans, who had made very significant contributions to their local community. All of them were sensing a great perception that the community that they had worked so hard to build and had given so much great sacrifice for was becoming unravelled. They were angry about corporate greed. They were angry about their government's indifference to public good. They were very concerned about the approach of their national government to the Ansett dispute—an approach which appeared to them to be, `Hands off and hang the consequences, and who cares about the lifeblood of the many people whose employment is thereby affected.' They were talking about nationalism. They were concerned about the future of Australia. The voice that I heard was expressing the view that true Australian nationalism involves not only credible defence against external aggression but also internal cohesion and a resolve that we can build a better future together.

The Leader of the Opposition has just introduced two pieces of legislation—the first would introduce a coastguard and the second would secure the employment benefits of those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. There are large issues of national security that we have to comprehend. We do need a whole of government response to those who are engaged in criminal activity. We need to see law enforcement now—at a time of growth in international organised crime and terrorism—as also having a national security component. All those issues are ones which Labor has been raising not recently but for a very significant period of time, to the indifference of a government that simply believed they could proceed with business as usual.

But our security abroad and security against criminal threats also requires attention to the insecurities that exist at home. There are many in our community who are wracked by deep feelings of uncertainty. There has been an unravelling of confidence that the future will be better than the past; that we are a united community; that we can rely on public institutions, particularly public education and health; that our jobs are secure; that our old age will be comfortable; that our savings and investments will be safe; that our nation is secure; that our homes and personal security is guaranteed; and basically that there will be a fair go for all.

Superimposed on all of this is the uncertainty that flowed from the external threats so vividly demonstrated by the destruction of the twin towers in New York. We are committed to an approach which will commit Australia to participate in a global response to that terrorism. In the short term, it is no easy task. Governments for some time have sought to identify this as a strategic objective. Within one week of assuming office, Ronald Reagan declared, `Let terrorists beware. When the rules of international behaviour are violated, our policy will be one of swift and effective retribution.'

No-one begrudges the right of the United States to take that effective action. Indeed, we on this side of the House endorse it. But we also do so with that degree of caution that is necessary for the internal cohesion of those things that we hold to be of value. We take the warnings of some who would warn that the greatest danger to that internal cohesion comes from our willingness to demonise those within on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion, and the warning that we must make sure that our political responses are no greater threat to democracy than those that are posed by the terrorists themselves. In the long term, as Robert Manne said in the Age today, we have to address some of the international phenomena that concern us. He said:

The same point that Mr Manne makes with respect to a need for broadening a response internationally also goes to our need to broaden our response in relation to security domestically. It is not going to be sufficient to respond to the challenges we face by strengthening the institutions of law enforcement if we do not look to those institutions that are necessary to ensure security in the broader sense. We need a better approach to combating threats to Australia's social and economic security.

Real security for all Australians demands a lot more than measures to combat terrorism and external threats—vital as those measures are. We must also address the grave insecurity posed by unemployment, attacks on our public health and education systems and corporate collapses. We also must defend those elements which are essential for the cohesion of our society, because we are rightly admired throughout the world for our willingness to accept people of different colours, creeds and political beliefs. We have shown in the past that political differences need not produce violent divisions. Now at this difficult time we must rise to meet our own standards. True Australian nationalism does require of us those responses.

Finally, we also have to look at those larger issues of globalisation. They now lead us in some circumstances to situations where, instead of governments having authority, decisions are imposed by remote and unaccountable international institutions or left simply to the market. The events of the last few weeks certainly show that leaving these issues to the market alone is not going to be sufficient. We do need to develop a public response and a public commitment, a willingness to take responsibility and not simply leave things to remote and unidentifiable forces. This of course is nothing new. In its assessment of the impacts of globalisation, the OECD issued an important warning in a landmark study called `Global markets matter', when it said:

That is, not only for liberalisation but for democracy, and the threat to erode that foundational basis for supportive democracy is very real.

What those people at the Glenorchy dinner were saying is that the polarisation and division between those of growing affluence and those without is too great, that a national government that ignores those who are the losers out of the system is unworthy, that governments of regions that are not dealt with in an appropriate way when their circumstances become less attractive because of the impacts of globalisation should be thrown out of office, and that we do need a new sense of responsibility, a new sense of commitment to nationalism and a sense that that involves all of us in commitments to a real and growing equality. (Time expired)