Senator ROBERT RAY (2:39 PM) —I direct my question to Senator Hill as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister recall the Prime Minister last week describing Iraq as:

In light of this view of Iraq as held by the Prime Minister and the abuses outlined today by Senator Vanstone, can the minister explain to the Senate why Australia maintains trade with this regime worth $840 million a year?

Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) —It is a bit like the previous question that was asked. Australia seeks to achieve a range of different objectives. It seeks to achieve economic advantage for the benefit of the Australian people and thus it trades with a number of regimes around the world, or it trades against the background of a number of regimes around the world, that are in many ways undesirable. In some instances, of course, it believes that trade sanctions—domestically applied trade sanctions—can help influence better behaviour. Obviously in this instance there is not a view that if Australia imposed a penalty upon itself by refusing to sell wheat that would have had any effect upon Saddam Hussein at all. At the same time, Australia also seeks to achieve—

Senator HILL —I am pleased that you understand it. It seeks to achieve the objective of disarming Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction and it has sought to do that for 12 years through a number of different ways, largely developed by the United Nations, in the hope that that series of actions might be effective. Thus Australia has contributed for the best part of 12 years to the sanctions regime in relation to his oil because it was believed that that might apply sufficient influence on him to cause a change in his behaviour. Unfortunately we now know that that did not work. The point is that in relation to the sale of wheat, we never thought that that would work and that is why we have not insisted that Australian people take a penalty where obviously a benefit is not going to flow from it.

Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government ever made any statement on how you equate economic self-interest with human rights? Are we willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers but not our own economic self-interest?

Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) —That is obviously not the case at all. We have accepted circumstances of economic sanctions in the past. We did it in relation to Burma because we thought it might work but it actually did not work there either. Previous governments have done it in relation to South Africa. The view is that it would not influence a change of behaviour by Saddam Hussein and, if it is not going to work, why would you penalise the Australian people?