Mr CREAN (2:11 PM) —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does he recall being asked yesterday about the threat to Australians in Surabaya, Indonesia, and his response:

Prime Minister, isn't it true that yesterday the British government also issued advice to British citizens that:

about Surabaya. Prime Minister, why are the British being honest about this increased terrorist threat in Surabaya following military action in Iraq while your government refuses to admit the truth?

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —I accept—

The SPEAKER —Prime Minister, when it is convenient—

Mr HOWARD —No, I am not going to—

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

The SPEAKER —I will recognise the Prime Minister when he can be heard. I do not see any point in recognising the Prime Minister when he cannot be heard.

Government members interjecting—

Mr HOWARD —Just keep quiet. The Leader of the Opposition has asked me a question about the nature and the basis of travel advice issued by the Australian government. Naturally, travel advice issued by the British government or issued by the government of the United States is a matter for those governments and is based on information which is received by those governments. Not surprisingly, different governments, even amongst countries that might share a common view on a number of things—which obviously the governments of the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom do—will differ. Can I point out to the Leader of the Opposition this: threat levels are determined by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The government acts in accordance with the advice from that organisation. I reiterate to the House that the government's comments and actions have been entirely consistent with the advice that we have received from ASIO.

The overall threat level in Australia has not changed since the beginning of the war in Iraq. It remains at the heightened level following 11 September, with the special alert issued by the government on 19 November last year remaining current. As the government has indicated, some specific threat levels in respect of some defence facilities and foreign interests in Australia have been raised. I should add that threat levels in respect of the United States and the United Kingdom assets have not changed, and they have been at high for some time. Also, threat levels against Australian interests in a number of countries overseas—especially in the Middle East—have been raised because of the war in Iraq. The government has been totally open and transparent about this through the DFAT travel advisories. But general threat levels were not raised in countries such as Indonesia, because they were already at a high level.

The fact is that the government has been open with the Australian people, since 11 September 2001, in sharing as far as it can information relevant to public safety. The government has done this even when the information is generalised and specific, which has led to some criticism. The alert of 19 November last year was a case in point. It was in the same spirit of responsibility and openness that DFAT issued the warning about Surabaya on Saturday, 22 March. I can state categorically that the government has been advised that none of the intelligence that formed the basis for that warning mentioned Iraq. As has been recently indicated—and I think I made this point yesterday—if there were to be a major terrorist attack in coming weeks, wherever in the world, we can assume now that the perpetrators will use Iraq as part of their raison d'être, whether that is the case or not. From the response of some opposite, the commonsense and logic of that is very strong indeed. But we can also assume with equal confidence that if any such attack were to occur it will have been in planning for some considerable time and long before war in Iraq became certain. The government has repeatedly reported, since the predeployment of Australian forces was announced in January 2003, that our intelligence agencies have advised that no intelligence has been received requiring the raising of the overall threat level in Australia. I assure the Leader of the Opposition, and I assure the Australian people, that if that changes we will pursue the same approach as we have since 11 September and bring it to the attention of the Australian people.

I want to make one final point, Mr Speaker, that no self-respecting country can allow its policies to be dictated by the threat of terrorism. That is not something that I believe. I believe that Australians would not want their government to fashion or dictate policy according to the threat of terrorism. The issue of terrorism and the potential threats of terrorism remain an issue in the ongoing debate about the government's decision to commit military forces to Iraq. It is the government's very strong view that Australia's involvement in Iraq is directed at reducing the threat of terrorism, and over the longer term it will do that. That remains the position and I can assure those opposite and assure the Australian public that if we receive any specific intelligence advice which would warrant further warnings of a generalised or specific kind to be made that will immediately be passed on to the public. But I am not responsible for the travel directives of the British government or the travel directives of the United States government. It is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, led by very professional people, who fashion the threat assessments which come to the government. The advice that we have received from that organisation has formed the basis of the travel warnings that we have given and will give in the future, not the advice of the intelligence organisation of any other country.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

The SPEAKER —I will recognise the member for Riverina in just a moment.