Senator CARR (5:44 PM) —I would like to talk about the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Syria, Lebanon and Israel during 9 to 21 November 2003, which was tabled last week in the last 47 seconds of proceedings, giving no opportunity to speak to this report. I would like to begin by acknowledging the gracious and generous remarks that the delegation leader, Sandy Macdonald, has put in the report concerning me. This is the second Australian parliamentary delegation to the Middle East that I have had the privilege of participating in. It has given me an opportunity to observe the developments in that region and the relationships between the nations of the region during 1999 to 2003.

This most recent delegation visited three countries—Syria, Lebanon and Israel—plus the Palestinian Authority areas. Despite their geographical proximity, I found that they were four very different societies. Such visits on behalf of the Australian parliament are important. They provide an opportunity to build and maintain relationships which, in my opinion, should be given greater attention. Many Australians were born in this region; many have relatives who still live there. These Australians and many more besides maintain a keen interest in the welfare and the development of Syria, Lebanon and Israel and, of course, of the Palestinian people. The world at large maintains a keen interest in the relationships between these nations which remain tense and very complex. Australia has much to offer all three nations and much to gain from the relationships with them as well.

There are valuable trade, research and infrastructure development relationships that already exist between Australia and each of these three nations but there is ample scope for further development. Syria is a particular example. The delegation has recommended that the Australian government consider reopening its embassy in Damascus, after having closed it in 1999. I am pleased to see that this recommendation is indeed under active consideration by the foreign minister, according to last weekend's newspapers. Last Saturday's Australian reported that Syria is appealing to Australia to assist in repairing its relationship with the United States. This is certainly consistent with the position put to our delegation some four months ago.

The United States has imposed a diplomatic freeze on Syria and is systematically isolating that nation as part of what it sees as its campaign against `rogue nations'. Those nations are asserted to be harbours of terrorism. However, if Australia wishes to encourage the development of a modern and open society in nations such as Syria, we have an important role to play in assisting rather than isolating such countries. Syria is a secular state and, by my observations, has undertaken tentative steps towards greater political freedoms and human rights improvements. Certainly, Syria's treatment of its Palestinian community is probably the most compassionate of any nation in the region.

Syria's secular government places a great deal of emphasis on religious tolerance and social harmony. Although the constitution requires that the president be a Muslim, it does not make Islam the state religion, and religious freedom is provided for. There is a flourishing Christian community operating within the country, which is unusual in many other parts of that region. In the context of the government's response to current developments, in our discussions they continually emphasised the need to avoid extremism. The Syrian government has emphasised socialism and secular Arabism, and has sought to build national rather than religious or ethnic allegiances.

Syria is—I must emphasise this—in desperate need of investment and trade to help modernise its heavily run-down infrastructure. This is partly due to an overinvestment in the machinery of war. Anything Australia can do to help Syria and Israel reach a peaceful solution to the dispute over the Golan Heights would assist both nations in this regard. We could certainly do more to assist Syria through greater trade relations and by upgrading our diplomatic contact. With trade between Australia and Syria running at only $24 million in 2002-03, we have a mutual interest in developing deeper ties, particularly in the export of Australian educational services and other goods and expertise.

A second recommendation in our report is that Australia send a trade delegation to Syria to expand these ties. I am encouraged by the bipartisan interest in Syria's appeal to Australia for assistance, especially amongst members of our delegation. I note that the delegation leader, Sandy Macdonald, was misquoted in the Australian report last Saturday. He did not actually call Syria `a bastard state for nearly 40 years'; he said `a Ba'ath state'. He was making the point, as I have, that Syria is a secular Arab nation and thus one which deserves support in its bid to modernise and play a role in the region and in the international community.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, we should acknowledge that Syria has treated its Palestinian population with a degree of respect and dignity, something which some of its neighbours could take heed of. The Palestinian refugees have the right to own property and to work—in short, to do all that full citizens can, except vote. Syria and Lebanon differ significantly in the way they have dealt with their Palestinian refugee populations, although the two nations share a similar geography, history and language.

In Lebanon we saw further evidence of the extensive rebuilding of Beirut. Infrastructure development in the regional areas outside the capital is, however, not progressing at quite the same rate as is occurring within the Beirut area. The Syrian influence on Lebanon remains strong, and Syria continues to maintain a considerable security and intelligence presence in the country. Despite its modernity and vibrancy, Lebanon still faces a struggle to rebuild its infrastructure and services. It faces the double burden of a large public debt and high unemployment. Like its neighbours, Lebanon would benefit from lasting regional security. Its particular confessional system makes politics in Lebanon particularly interesting and, given that the census on which Syrian confessional divisions occur was in fact based on the census taken in 1932—and even at that time was said to have been not a strictly accurate reflection of the population at that time—it is little wonder that the political divide within Lebanon remains so delicate.

There is no doubt, on the other hand, that the economy of Israel has suffered because of the security situation. Tourism has dropped by 90 per cent as a result of the intifada. Building and construction have suffered a major downturn, and an increase in defence and security spending has put a huge strain on the public sector. In 2002 Israel spent some 16 per cent of its GDP on defence. This has a serious impact on the state's ability to pay its own public servants—its teachers and its health care workers, for example—and with economic activity severely curtailed by the security situation unemployment is growing rapidly.

War weariness is not just about people fearing for their lives and their safety, although this is a very real fear for many people in Israel; it is also about having to deal with the terrible impact on economic activity, on jobs, on services and on the very basis of daily life for many Israelis. Living standards have fallen dramatically. Average income has fallen from something like $18,000 per annum to $14,000 per annum. This compares with an average annual income for the Palestinians of $800. One can only begin to describe the extraordinarily difficult economic position of the Palestinians in the context of recent activities there.

It is clear, however, in my judgment that there must be a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is clearer than ever that such a resolution will never be found through military means. This is a view that was shared by some of the most experienced strategists within Israel itself. In the month before our delegation's visit, the army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, was quoted in the press as saying that the network of restrictions placed on the Palestinian population in the occupied territories had proven to be counterproductive and was breeding greater militancy. Just prior to our arrival in Israel, four former heads of the Shin Bet security service also spoke out, saying that a political rather than a military solution was needed urgently. Avraham Shalom, who headed the security service from 1980 to 1996, told Israel's largest circulation Hebrew daily newspaper:

Carmi Gillon, who ran Shin Bet between 1995 and 1996, said that he and his colleagues had agreed to an interview with the newspaper `out of serious concern for the condition of the state of Israel'. Major General Ami Ayalon, who headed the agency from 1996 to 2000, is a co-author of a peace petition signed by tens of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. Yaakov Perry, whose term as security chief was between 1988 and 1995, the period covering the first Palestinian intifada, said:

These four men said that Israel should be prepared to initiate a peace process unilaterally rather than wait for the Palestinians to bring a halt to terrorism, which, of course, is current Prime Minister Sharon's overriding prerequisite for negotiations. The former security chiefs were critical of the Sharon government's efforts to sideline Yasser Arafat and called the Jewish settlements that have proliferated across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip among the greatest obstacles to peace. They have also condemned the 400-mile fence, wall, barrier or complex—whatever name you choose—that Israel is erecting around the heart of the West Bank. Mr Shalom said:

Mr Gillon said:

I quote these people to demonstrate that it is not just starry-eyed idealists who say such things. These are hard-headed, hardened professionals. These are all very proud Israelis. I quote these people to show that criticising the approach to security of the current Sharon government is not by any means the same as opposing the right of Israel to exist or indeed to defend itself. Rather, it is a serious matter for those who care deeply and passionately about the welfare of the state of Israel and the Israeli people. To care about the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people is also not inconsistent with support for a safe and healthy Israeli nation.

I count myself as one who supports both a political solution and the right of the Israeli and Palestinian people to coexist peacefully in their own neighbouring states. I was disappointed, therefore, that the Australian parliamentary delegation had little opportunity to exchange views with our Israeli government hosts. I felt that our capacity to understand the complexities of the situation and our right to a differing viewpoint were somewhat underestimated at a number of our meetings.

We were, however, also privileged to meet with a number of very impressive, courageous and articulate political leaders who are indeed committed to pursuing a political solution to the conflict. There are many senior political figures in Israel who are pushing ahead with trying to find a political solution. I point in particular to the Geneva peace accords, a brave attempt by Israelis and Palestinians to keep the path to peaceful negotiations open. Some people call them naive but, judging by the calibre of people on both sides, this is a serious and realistic attempt to find a way through the impasse. To strive for a peaceful settlement, for a circuit-breaker in the ever-escalating cycle of violence, and to want settlement rather than more blood is to me the epitome of realism, not idealism. Our delegation met some of the key people involved in the Geneva discussions, including former Labour member of the Knesset Yossi Beilin; former minister Professor Yuli Tamir, also a member of the Knesset; Mr Qadoura Fares, Minister for State and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, the PLC; and Mr Mohammad Hourani, another member of the PLC.

The Geneva initiative addresses several of the most vexed issues including the status of Jerusalem and the fate of the Palestinian refugees. A political solution must acknowledge the inevitability of Palestinian and Israeli interdependence. It must be based on building a viable two-state solution founded upon mutual respect. Only when serious efforts to find that political solution are under way will there be an opportunity to take away the excuse for yet another cycle of violence.

With that, I welcome the statement made yesterday by the Palestinian Prime Minister, Ahmed Qurei, condemning the suicide bombers as an obstacle to the peace process. He, in fact, said that there ought not to be a campaign of bombing to avenge the assassination of Sheikh Yassin. I look forward to the change in attitude, however, from the Israeli government on the question of resuming the peace process. Others note that from time to time in my speeches I refer to the Bible. While I am not a great proponent of such a document, I do think it has a lot to offer. I will quote an old biblical verse which also very much reflects Jewish philosophy:

The time to hate and the time for war are surely over. The time has come for the cycle of violence to be broken and the Australian government should be doing all that it can to lend its assistance. I hope our brief visit can contribute in some way to informing those efforts.

I wish to conclude by thanking the Parliamentary Relations Office for coordinating arrangements for the delegation, especially those undertaken by Joan Towner, the staff of the Australian embassies in Egypt and Syria, Lebanon and Israel and those accredited to the Palestinian Authority. I would also like to thank the Australian Federal Police for the invaluable close protection work which was provided to us on this occasion. I might just say, though, that I think it is appalling that officers of the Australian Federal Police can be sent out to the Middle East to guard parliamentarians and asked to travel on an economy ticket. All other Public Service officers, as I understand it, are entitled over that distance to at least travel in slightly better comfort. I find it extraordinary that, when I approached Qantas to try to provide assistance to our Federal Police officer on the way home, I was advised that no assistance could possibly be lent. I think that is something that the government should look at. If people are asked to guard members of this parliament on international trips to the other side of the world then I think they are entitled to at least travel with a little degree of comfort. I also acknowledge the host parliaments for the generous hospitality that was extended to the delegation and I thank the parliamentarians, political leaders, local businesses, community leaders and academics who so generously shared their time, their ideas and their insights with us.