Individuals have value

I am committed to the dignity and worth of the individual.

I believe in the rights and freedoms of all people to self-determination. By this, we mean the determining by a people to the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other people.

The Charter of the United Nations calls for respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples.

I commend the present Liberal Federal Government for its bold stance in East Timor last year. The Prime Minister, John Howard, made a stance for freedom, peace and dignity.

The Labor Government during the Hawke and Keating eras negotiated, signed (in 1989) and implemented the Timor Gap Treaty. The Labor Government under Keating was the only member of the United Nations to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor.

Fortunately, in 1998, the Liberal Howard Government broke a ban on contact with the East Timorese resistance when Australias ambassador in Indonesia, Mr John McCarthy, met with the gaoled resistance leader Xanana Gusmo.

In its Foreign Affairs and Trade Policy - released during the recent 1998 election campaign - the Howard Government said it attached importance to a resolution of the problems of East Timor. It supported greater autonomy for the people of East Timor and would support all parties maintaining a dialogue leading to a resolution of this problem.

It is very interesting to note the confusion that came from left-wing organisations and political movements. Indeed, it was as if they felt that a conservative Government is not supposed to do such things as work towards a free East Timor.

It's true that the Liberal Party supports business and initiative and enterprise. It clearly has an excellent record on economic issues. Yet, in its nearly four years of Government now, we have seen gun laws, an open vote on the republic and progress to reconciliation.

The Labor Party lives in a policy vacuum; this is clearly true - but yet it is even more irrelevant when one realises that the Coalition has a strong commitment - and track record - on social policy.

I remember, early in Howard's leadership, when the Dalai Lama visited Australia.

As a quick reminder, Chinese forces invaded and occupied independent Tibet in 1949-1950. Over one million Tibetans were killed during this period. The Dalai Lama, spiritual and political leader of his people, escaped into exile in India in 1959, after ten years of ceaseless but unsuccessful efforts to have the Chinese regime recognise the rights of the Tibetan people to live with freedom and dignity. In fact, the Dalai Lama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

Now, the Dalai Lama visited Australia in September 1996 and the Prime Minister wished to meet with him and grant the usual honours than an overseas dignitary should expect. However, the Chinese Government applied pressure to prevent this - because, of course, the Chinese Government do not wish Tibet to be recognised as an independent nation. Their pressure included strong threats of economic reprisals.

Despite this, Prime Minister John Howard held a 40-minute meeting with the Dalai Lama. He also met with Foreign Affairs minister Alexander Downer.

The leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, also met with the Dalai Lama. Yet, this was entirely inconsistent. Up to the very minute of the Dalai Lama's visit, Kim Beazley was fully critical of, and opposed to, John Howard's intentions, because of these Chinese threats.

On the surface, it may have sounded as if Kim Beazley's criticisms were mindful of Australian trade and employment. Yet, if one thinks a bit harder, these actions really went to demonstrate that the Australian Labor Party is very willing to turn a blind eye to human suffering and oppression. In practical terms, Beazley demonstrated that Labor does not believe that all people do have a right to self-determination.

So we face an interesning twist here. Conservative Governments with clear economic strength are not typically regarded as having strengths in social policy.

Yet, this is not the case: if we look through the history of the Liberal Party we can see that it has made such actions as financing the distribution of free milk to all school-aged children under 10 in 1950 under Menzies. It established a Youth Homelessness Early Intervention Programme in 1998. It established the Department of Environment, Aborigines and the Arts in 1971 under McMahon. It made whaling in Australian waters an offence in 1980 under Fraser. It established schools for Aborigines in the Northern Territory in 1950 under Menzies, and granted Aborigines full citizen rights in 1967 under Holt. It launched ethnic television stations in 1980 under Fraser. It established the Australian Institute of Sport in 1980 under Fraser. It announced a national Literacy and Numeracy strategy in 1997. These actions, and others, demonstrate that the Liberal Party does indeed govern for all.

The Labor Party does not have such a record on human rights issues. This makes sense, of course, because Labor's ideology is towards the will of unions, and fostering a spirit of welfare dependency. Labor does not permit a free vote within its ranks on issues like the republic. No, the Labor Party is a party that quells the voice of the individual.

How can the Labor Party support human rights issues to the same strength when it is clearly a party that ultimately does not cherish and value the individual?

By contrast, the Liberal Party has proven that it is well rounded; it is driving Australia forward in economic issues, and it is leading the way in social issues. Day by day the Labor Party becomes increasingly irrelevant.

I am committed to the dignity and worth of the individual. That's why I'm proud of the record of the current Federal Government under John Howard.