---

Burma

I have read both the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. The phrase ““responsibility to protect”” appears in the motion, but not in the amendment. Let me try to clarify the position. Gareth Evans, the former Australian Foreign Minister, has written that dangers will be posed in the international community if we use the term ““responsibility to protect”” so loosely that it undermines the necessity of such action when it is sanctioned by the United Nations in the context of crimes against humanity, such as genocide. Is that the reason for the Government's amendment?