Senator HILL (Leader of the Opposition) (5.54 p.m.) —In speaking to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Gareth Evans), I put it on the record in case there is any doubt that this side of the chamber deplores violence and communal violence, any violence in fact, and is firmly of the view that, no matter what the stress or provocation, such violence is un-Australian and totally unacceptable within our community.

  Having said that, I turn to the minister's statement. There is no doubt that the government has made an awful mess of this issue, complex though it is. On reading the last few sentences of the minister's statement, which states in part, `governments can only do so much', one could only reflect on the errors that this government—particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Keating) and the Foreign Minister—has made that required a ministerial statement today.

  When the government made the decision a few weeks ago to recognise the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia it did not bring down a ministerial statement in this place; it simply did it by press release. The government just announced to the press what would happen; apparently without any understanding—one would hope this is giving the government the benefit of the doubt—of the degree of sensitivity to the issue within the Greek community and within the former Yugoslav community. One would have expected that if the government had understood the very deep and passionate concern that so many have, there would have been a full process of consultation with both sides of the now Australian community involved, to minimise any misunderstandings.

  One would have expected many of the things we heard in this statement today to come out as a result of that process of consultation—before the government took any action of recognition. But, in a way that is so typical of this government, that did not occur. It simply dictated an outcome to the Australian community—whether it be to the Greek community or to the community of former Yugoslavia—and they had to cop it and the consequences. I think it is that lack of consultation and understanding of the sensitivity of the issue that has led to so much distress regarding this matter in the Australian community.

  Let us make no mistake: Greek Australians feel that they have been betrayed. Their trust has been betrayed by this government, and in particular by Mr Keating and Senator Evans. They feel betrayed because of the specific undertakings given to them by Mr Keating and reiterated by Senator Evans in this chamber, which were conveniently forgotten at the time the government made the decision to recognise the FYROM.

  Since then, the government has sought to rationalise its decision with an argument that those preconditions had been met. I will detail a little later the reasons they have not been met. That sense of betrayal is felt very deeply. It is quite legitimate for Greek Australians to go out onto the streets and, in a peaceful way, demonstrate their distress at being treated in that way.

  The government has now compounded its error by, in effect, also betraying the trust of the former Yugoslavs. To designate them now for political purposes with this convenient tag of Slav-Macedonian whether or not they are racially or ethnically Slav people is highly offensive. Was there a process of consultation with these people before the government decided to name them in such terms and before it in an unprecedented way informed government departments that this was the way in which they were to be referred in future? No, in fact, this seems to have come out of the consultation, which occurred after the event, with the Greek community last week.

  If ever there was a demonstration as to how to offend two major communities within our Australian society it has been demonstrated by the way in which the foreign minister and the Prime Minister have handled this matter. So now we have two deeply distressed communities within the Australian society instead of one deeply distressed community within our society, as we had a week or so ago.

  The government of course has now been forced in a damage control and damage minimisation way after the event to come in here and put down a ministerial statement to, in effect, reassure both communities of its good faith. I do not mind the government doing that because when we see the level of distress within the community it has a responsibility to do something, but what is so regrettable is that this was in many ways so unnecessary. It could, to a large extent, have been avoided by sound government practice, which was not demonstrated by the Keating government in this instance.

  Sensitivity and consultation in difficult circumstances were the least that these communities had the right to expect from the Australian government, particularly from Mr Keating, and from his foreign minister, Senator Evans. That sensitivity was not shown. That consultation was not entered into.

  We on this side of the chamber acknowledge that there are difficult sets of issues that arise out of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. They have been there now for some years. What is the appropriate time to recognise new states? I remember when Salvinia seemed to fulfil the four termed preconditions to recognition, which Senator Gareth Evans referred to, as required in international law. But the Australian government paused for a little while because it had to also consider whether recognition at that time enhanced a process of building stability within a very difficult region or whether in fact it could be detrimental. The Australian government presumably addressed the issue of recognition of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as an independent state in the same light—not simply considering whether it met the four international law criteria but whether a decision to that effect would enhance the stability or whether it could provide further problems.

  That is why I am giving Mr Keating the benefit of the doubt. He said back in 1992 that the government would not recognise the new state until basically issues with Greece over the question of the name had been settled because he, presumably, did not want to inflame further tension. He said on 3 March 1992 that the first of the preconditions was `the use of the word "Macedonia" being settled in a way that does not cause further tension with Greece'.

  So giving him the benefit of the doubt, that is what he had in mind when he put down that precondition. If I was not to give him the benefit of that doubt, I would have said that it was a precondition and that the three preconditions were simply put on at that time to suit the political needs of the moment. If I can recall correctly that was in the period in the lead up to the Victorian state election when there was community debate on this issue of recognition and Mr Keating wanted to put down a position that reassured Greek Australians that the Australian government would not act unless certain preconditions, three in particular, were met.

  But, as I said, giving him that benefit of the doubt, if that was the reason then it is equally true today. It is probably why Canada has not yet acted to recognise. Some states have, some states have not. I think only about a third of the states of the United Nations have so acted.

  But that is not really what this debate today is all about, because there are the international relations aspects and there are also the domestic aspects. That latter issue is really the subject of this debate: how to move to a particular position in international relations that does not cause communal disharmony within our society. Probably one of the principal responsibilities of the Australian government is that it must have concern as to how its actions will be interpreted and acted upon in turn within the Australian community.

  It is no secret that that is one of the reasons why the Australian forces are not contributing to certain UN involvements in the former Yugoslavia. It is very difficult for Australia to do that when it has such large communities of Croats, of Serbs, of those from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and so on. The government quite rightly has to ask itself not only whether it will be constructively contributing to the resolution of a conflict in that area of the world—the Balkans—but also how it will affect communal relations in Australia. That latter consideration, which we suggest is absolutely vital to this chamber, was overlooked by the Australian government when it decided to move on this issue without any adequate consultation.

  So we have a situation where the Australian government today tries to rescue itself politically. That is really what this statement is all about. The government is simply trying to rescue itself from a difficult political mess that is of its own making; a mess that I would suggest has been worsened by the decisions that have come out of the meetings of last week.

  Let us take one other example. A further reason that the minister gave for acting last month on the recognition was that there were some 75,000 Australians formerly of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia who deserved consular representation. Yet the minister now tells us that, because of the conditions to be imposed, consular representation is not likely to be afforded. Conditions have been imposed that will not be accepted by the government of the state that Australia now recognises. I would have thought that that is inconsistent; we cannot have it both ways. I understand the argument for the restraints that the minister has included. I do not mind his putting that argument on the usage of names and symbols and so forth, because their use also inflames the communities within Australia. But he cannot at the same time say that he is doing it in order that a consulate might be open to afford these people facilities that they do not currently have. That would seem to be simply an argument of convenience—and when one examines it, it is found to be false.

  So we have this situation where the government has acted for domestic political purposes. It has sought to rescue a situation that is unnecessary and of its making. It has, rather sadly, simply further inflamed communal tensions within our society as a result of this statement. Therefore, there is very little positive that we can say about what is before us today. We issued today through our foreign affairs spokesman a statement deploring this reference to those who are of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia simply as Slav-Macedonians, and rejecting the explanation that was given by Senator Evans in his statement that `Slav' in this context should simply be taken as shorthand for the country's name, not so much as an ethnic reference.

  It is not a question of how Senator Evans says they should interpret it; it is a question of how they interpret it themselves. Normally when one changes one's name in this country, it is with consent. But the people concerned were given no opportunity for consent. In typical fashion, Senator Evans simply said, `This will be how you are to be described, but don't take offence because we are not intending that you should take offence'. That is simply not good enough. It demonstrates how little the government has learnt throughout this whole sad sequence of events.

  This will go down as one of the saddest chapters in history in terms of a contribution by an Australian government towards communal harmony. We boast about this country's multicultural society. But we say to Senator Evans that if we encourage a multicultural society—in other words, if we encourage and facilitate the people who come to this country in maintaining their traditional cultures and beliefs; I support that—we have to recognise the dangers in doing so. The old tensions and rivalries and passions will come with it. When we as governments deal with people in those circumstances and make decisions that affect and inflame those passions, we should be sensitive to the likely consequences. We should ensure that the decisions we make minimise the potential damage and the potential communal stress rather than build upon them.

  Whilst I am pleased that the government has finally come into this chamber with a statement explaining its actions, I regret very much the way in which it has handled this matter. It will not go down as a success story. It will go down as one of the messiest applications of international relations policy when applied to domestic society that we have ever experienced in my time in this place.