Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (4:38 PM) —I have mixed views about speaking today on this motion moved by the member for Gilmore. It is worth while for this House to note that there is a significant impact of external factors on the local tourist industry. Though we may disagree about what those factors are, it is fair to agree with the mover of this motion that the contribution of local and regional tourism to the national economy should be recognised. It is also fair to say that this House should acknowledge the important role of local and regional tourism in providing employment opportunities, particularly for young people. In those areas of the motion, I concur with the mover and speakers in favour.

However, there are some provisions of this motion that I cannot support. For example, I cannot support this government being in any way acknowledged as a contributor to this industry. The fact remains that, if you were to try to convince people of that, you would have to argue with 17,000 Ansett workers who do not have jobs any more, as well as with the thousands of other employees who were without a job after the Ansett collapse. Whilst I do not suggest that the government was solely responsible for the collapse of Ansett, it is fair to say—and most independent analysis that has been considered since the collapse would say—that the government failed to act proactively in any way to prevent Ansett's collapse.

That is the case with respect to this government. They failed to look after one of the largest companies of this country—one of the largest domestic airlines. The consequences of that have affected not only those 17,000 former Ansett employees and those others who no longer have jobs but also the price structure of domestic travel in this country, which is another thing that will debilitate the tourist industry, because it is now more expensive to travel, given the fact that Qantas has effectively a monopoly in the domestic market of the aviation industry. That can hardly be an elephant stamp for either this government or the minister for tourism. Their aviation policy was a complete and abject failure and has had consequential adverse effects upon the tourist industry. That is one thing we should note when we are considering this motion, and it is a reason why I have to disagree with some of the previous speakers.

It is also fair to say that this government has not provided a fantastic image of this country overseas in recent times. I do not think the image that Australia gained when politicians in a domestic election alleged that people threw their children into the sea—allegations now shown to be untrue—is the sort of image that would make people say, `That's the sort of place I would like to go and visit. They have such noble and honest politicians.' That image was portrayed as recently as November 2001. It is an image which is a disgrace. It has certainly sullied the image of this country and, therefore, that is also a reason why our tourist industry suffers.

It is also fair to say that it is hard to explain to tourists who may want to travel to this place why we incarcerate children behind barbed wire. That is not a particularly innovative way in which to attract people to this country in any way. It is inhumane, and it is that sort of approach which has had this government condemned by many governments and spokespeople around the world on behalf of those who are suffering as a result of the policies of the government. Whilst that may not be anything that is primarily associated with the tourist industry, there is no doubt in my mind that those images that we portray globally as a result of the decisions by this government have not in any way assisted us in attracting people to this place.

Finally, it is important to note that the way in which this government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have acted in a hawkish manner towards war and have wanted to move way ahead of the rest of the international community on war is not going to attract people to this country. It certainly will not have people believing that we are a safe haven or a safe place. The foreign policy and defence decisions of this government have only ensured that many people around the world will see us as a place which is not safe to travel to. Those decisions certainly have not increased the sense of security that we have as citizens in this country, and Australia is hardly a place that is more attractive to travel to now than it was some years ago. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The time allotted for private members' business has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.