Senator COONEY (4:45 PM) —Thank you, Senator Calvert, had you not said that you were about to finish I would have been absent. This is, to state the obvious, an important debate. It deals with our relationship with Fiji and it talks about how Australia should maintain pressure on Fiji, along with the international community, to obtain right and justice there. The concept of what is right and just varies from person to person, but we as a nation should have defined concepts of what we think is appropriate in our relations between ourselves and other countries, including Fiji. We have said that in these circumstances—and Senator Calvert has just said—democracy is what is wanted. I think when Senator Calvert uses the word `democracy', he means that a right order should be placed in Fiji. I do not think Australia should be in a position where it dictates the actual form of the democracy that Fiji should follow. I do not think that they should necessarily have a house of representatives or a senate as a matter of necessity although, given the greatness with which this Senate operates, it would be good for them to have such a body.

I do think there are fundamental issues that go right across the board that any democracy worthy of the name would have as part of its constitution, and I think fairness is one of them. Clearly what has happened in Fiji is that there has been a denigration of a substantial part of its population—namely, the Indian population. When I say `Indian', I use that term to distinguish them from the indigenous Fijians. The Indians themselves are Fijians, and have been now for a long while. Indeed, most people in Australia who call themselves Australians would have had less time in Australia than the Indian Fijians have had in Fiji. In any event, no matter where people come from, if they are in a country and are a part of that country they should have a say in it.

I wish to say something on the issue of what is, in effect, racism: where one race says that another race should be put at a disadvantage, no matter what that disadvantage may be. I think that, in recent decades at least, we ourselves have had a proud history in terms of our attitude towards other nations. But we could be accused of racism ourselves. I think that is pertinent at the moment, given our attitude towards people who are refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. If you look at our approach to those people who are refugees and who are now in the community, I think you would see great elements of racism. So when we are talking about Fiji and about the position that people like George Speight took there, let us remember that we ourselves do not come from a perfectly good position. We come from a good position but not from a perfectly good position.

Indeed, there is racism around the world. When we want to keep pressure on Fiji so that everybody in Fiji gets a fair deal, let us remember that our own conduct within our own shores either helps or hinders the ability we have to maintain that pressure. Although our racism is not as overt or as powerful as has been exhibited in Fiji in recent times, if we can be accused of racism then our ability to maintain international pressure on Fiji is discounted. I have just come down from a meeting of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where we are talking about our attitude to the indigenous people of this country, and the past history—and perhaps even the present history—of our attitude towards the indigenous people smacks of racism.

So the first thing I say about our ability to maintain pressure on Fiji is that we as a nation ought to conduct ourselves in such a way that we can talk to Fiji with credibility, and therefore with effectiveness. Clearly, we need to talk to Fiji and we need to keep up the pressure. In fact perhaps the most effective pressure that has been put on Fiji is that which was put on by the unions. You will remember, Madam Deputy President, that at a time when it was proper and right for Australia to indicate its disappointment with Fiji, it was the unions that took some concrete steps. So I think that should be noted.

The next thing is that, if we are going to maintain pressure on Fiji, that pressure should be applied where it can have most effect. That requires an analysis of what has gone on in Fiji. This morning, I noticed what I thought was a very interesting article in the Australian headed `Scapegoat to mollify ministers'. The article is by Tony Kevin, who is a visiting fellow in the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University. In that article, Tony Kevin says that George Speight has been much condemned—and he has. He also says that the opprobrium heaped upon George Speight may be seen as excessive in the long run when a proper analysis is made of what actually happened in Fiji.

I raise that in terms of another point I want to make. When the Berlin Wall was pulled down and the tide of communism was turned back in Europe—to use an often used phrase—it was thought that everything would be perfect; that heaven had come upon the world. Of course, that was not the situation. When communism went, there was a rise in nationalism—almost tribalism—in places like the former Yugoslavia. We have had trouble in the old USSR itself. The point I want to make is that symbols are very powerful and events are very powerful but they are never so powerful as to sweep away all the trouble that needs to be swept away. That is why we will always have to struggle in this world to have things done better.

It was thought that the removal of George Speight would solve all the problems in Fiji, just as it was thought that pulling down the Berlin Wall and turning back communism in Europe would solve all the problems in Europe. It has not done so in Europe and it will not in Fiji. What we need now—and what this government must do—is an accurate analysis of what the real situation is in Fiji so that, when we are applying international pressure, that pressure is effective. As Tony Kevin points out, the people who are now in control of Fiji have got rid of George Speight but they have not returned to power the government which existed at the time of George Speight's coup on 19 May this year.

It is worth reading out what Tony Kevin—who, as I said, is a visiting fellow in the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University—says:

From Tony Kevin's article, it is quite clear that if you accept what he says we have to apply international pressure in a way that is effective and which respects all the people in Fiji who have an interest in what happens there.

Madam Deputy President, if you accept what Tony Kevin and other people say, Australia—and, in particular, the Australian government—has not performed as well as it might in carrying out actions against Fiji. I do not think that the government knows even now exactly what the pressures are in Fiji. It should. Given that, what is the government going to do? What is going to happen to Mr Chaudhry—the Indo-Fijian who was Prime Minister on 19 May when George Speight took over the Fijian parliament house? Mr Chaudhry is still out of power, even though George Speight has been taken into custody and charged with treason.

The issue that faces us is how we are going to bring about democracy—how we are going to bring about a good result—in Fiji. But we will have to do a lot better than we have done up until now. We really have to analyse what is going on in Fiji and who the people were who pulled the strings that led to the present situation. Having done that, we should apply pressure to Fiji in a way that is sensitive but at the same time effective so that those people who have brought about this disastrous situation are the ones who should feel the pressure. We can condemn from now until doomsday the dreadful things that George Speight has done, but that will not solve the problems that persist in Fiji. It is not until we get a proper analysis of things that the problem will be solved. Yes, I think George Speight is the focus of the disaster in Fiji, but dealing with what he has done, what he is doing or what might happen to him in the future will not provide the answer we want in this matter.

It is time for the government to make a clear statement of its analysis of the situation in Fiji—an analysis that seems to ring true in terms of the recent history of the place and the likely outcome. When that has been defined, the government should make positive moves to ensure that justice is done not only to the indigenous Fijians but to the Indian Fijians. The government should define what it is going to do about Mr Chaudhry and his government. It should define how it sees its part in the recovery of democracy in Fiji and how a proper result can be obtained for all Fijians; indeed, for all people who have relations with Fiji.

We in Australia have benefited not so much from the present troubles but from the previous troubles there. People with high skills have come to Australia from Fiji and have contributed mightily to our society in economic and social terms.

I will conclude on this note. At the moment we are very much against certain types of refugees. But it has to be remembered that, since refugees have been coming here—particularly since just before the Second World War until now—we have been much enriched by those refugees. When we condemn or treat them badly, we are discounting a history in which we have gained powerfully because of the people that have come here. In that context, Fijians have come here as refugees and have contributed to society. Let us hope that, following this debate, the government does make a true—in the sense of accurate—and comprehensive analysis of what is going on in Fiji and applies such pressure as is most apt to obtain a decent society there.