Page 2695 - Week 12 - Thursday, 16 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Berlin Wall
DR KINLOCH (5.40): I, too, was confused the other night. I assumed that we were talking about the Berlin Wall and I welcomed - no, that might be the wrong word - I was glad to have the chance to remember what had happened in the 1930s and 1940s. May I repeat my requests to you as of the other day? Those requests are in Hansard.
United Nations
MR COLLAERY (5.40): I rise to endorse the comments of the last three speakers. I believe I have the answers to what happened the other night. The fact is that the prepared speech on the Holocaust was held by Mr Berry but he was not able to be in the chamber in time and Minister Grassby ably took his place on the topic. But it did throw us off, on the other side of the house, and we thought that you were addressing the Berlin Wall. I trust that persons reading the Hansard will take note of that, as my colleague Mr Humphries said.
On a further note, during the debate today on the proposed convention on the rights of the child, I believe it is incumbent upon us to be very conscious of our proximity to the national capital and the diplomatic activities of the Federal Government. We had here today a debate which may be noted diplomatically and may have some effect either way on the negotiating position of the Australian Government abroad, at this very time, tomorrow and over the next few days. It behoves us to bear in mind when we put matters of this nature on the agenda that we may or may not affect a negotiating position of our Government.
I believe, in terms of draft conventions, it may be better in the first instance for this Assembly to consider the views of other States and territories and to seek that the public debate be well ordered, well rehearsed, and that there be some consideration of the position of our diplomatic service. I am not saying that we cavil to them, but we should bear in mind the significance of what discussions of this nature can sometimes do to a negotiating position. It would be similar to us debating a commercial takeover before it had been announced, or doing something like that. We must bear that in mind.
I do take the point that we are a sovereign Assembly and we could ask the Federal Government to stop doing something that we greatly disagree with. But I feel there was no evidence that there was great disagreement with it. We do not know how we will be reported internationally in terms of Mr Stevenson's comments. That is a very significant thing and I would publicly ask Mr Stevenson to consider that in the future in terms of Australia's diplomatic position.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .