My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister—

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the member for Lalor made the point clearly, but I do ask that the comment be withdrawn.

I asked the member for Indi if she made an offensive remark. She informed me that she did not. I will have to take the member’s word on this.

Mr Speaker, on a further matter, I seek leave to table a document listing the appointments that were announced by the Attorney on 28 July, which does not include that of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, who was also reappointed on that day.

Leave granted.

I thank the House.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order further to the points of order raised by the member for Lalor and the member for Gellibrand. Am I to take it that your ruling is that people will be able to judge for themselves the nature of the offensive remark—that is, whether or not it is offensive—or the person so offended will, as standing orders clearly state?

Order! The member for Grayndler has made his point. I will rule. As has been the case with previous occupiers of the chair, when the chair does not hear a remark the chair calls upon the member who has been asked to withdraw to say whether or not an offensive remark has been made. The member has assured the chamber that it was not an offensive remark. The chair can take it no further.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last year you threw me out for calling the Prime Minister a hypocrite.

Order! The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. If the member for Melbourne has a point of order, he will come to it and not debate.

The member for Indi called the member for Gellibrand a hypocrite. You should require her to withdraw. You required me to withdraw the same accusation against the Prime Minister last year. It is about time we had fair treatment for members on this side.

I call the member for Indi, but before doing so I remind the member for Melbourne he will not reflect on the chair. Did the member for Indi refer to another member as a hypocrite?

Mr Speaker, I am not sure which part of my phrase was offensive—

Order! The member for Indi will respond to my 5question!

whether the member for Gellibrand was a feminist or whether she was a hypocrite. Which part is offensive?

The member for Indi will withdraw that remark!

If the truth hurts I withdraw the remark.

The member for Indi will withdraw without reservation.

I do withdraw.

I call the member for Boothby.

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on Australia’s role in ensuring international nuclear safeguards and nonproliferation? Is the minister aware of any criticisms of Australia’s role?

I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. I think members will be aware he is the Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and at the moment they are examining the nuclear safeguards agreement that we have negotiated with China, so he has a real understanding of these issues. In answer to the honourable member’s question, let me say that Australia is at the forefront of international efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials that could be used in weapons systems and to ban weapons testing.

As the foreign affairs minister, I introduced into the United Nations General Assembly in September 1996 the comprehensive test ban treaty, which was adopted by the General Assembly. We in Australia have the world’s most rigorous uranium export safeguards—and with 40 per cent of the world’s known exploitable and commercially available uranium it is important we do. Australia is a very active member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and also of the International Atomic Energy Agency. No country has a more diligent record than Australia. As the House and the honourable members know, the Prime Minister has commissioned a review of uranium mining and processing and nuclear energy, and I think this is a responsible thing to do so that we can have a serious debate about these issues.

There has been some criticism, in particular from the Leader of the Opposition, who said on the ABC on 24 July:

I’m not going to move to support enrichment and nuclear power because I think that’s the policy of an idiot ...

I would draw the House’s attention to the fact that France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan and many other countries in the world use nuclear energy, so the suggestion that somehow these countries are run by idiots or have the policies of idiots is, I would have thought, a bizarre thing for the Leader of the Opposition, who aspires to be the Prime Minister, to say. He said on the same day to the Sydney Institute—and this was, after all, in a written speech—that our consideration of these nuclear issues:

... sends the wrong message to the region. There is no question that Australia would be less secure, and not more, if our neighbours believe we have nuclear ambitions.

I do not think that is actually a responsible thing to say. This country does not, of course, have nuclear weapons ambitions, and everybody in the region knows it. To suggest that a country which is considering issues like nuclear power is also considering nuclear weapons and that others in the region would think that is, to say the least, utterly absurd. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia all either have nuclear energy programs or at least are considering them.

The simple fact is that the people of Australia deserve to have a more mature debate on these sorts of issues than those kinds of statements suggest. I certainly think that it is quite the wrong thing to drum up antagonism towards this country in the region just in order to make a political point.