Page 3700 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.14): Mr Speaker, I endorse broadly the comments to date on the floor. I believe we should be careful to take note of what the Leader of the Opposition said about a non-partisan debate. We are talking largely, as Dr Kinloch indicated, about drafting style. I never use the term "non-racial"; it hangs over from another day, another era. We have considered this motion in light of the fact that the Federal Parliament is not sitting at the moment, as far as I know, and that it will perhaps be seen to be an important motion for the nation.
It is most important from our point of view to have the drafting and the ideas correct and to observe the traditions as set out in May's Parliamentary Practice. There is no substantive disagreement with anything proposed by the Opposition. If the Opposition had come and discussed the motion with us first I am certain we would have achieved agreement on it.
A few churlish remarks have been thrown across the floor. I think that is in the spirit of gamesmanship and I do not think it appropriate for me to respond, other than to say that it is a sobering thought to see in the authorised biography of Nelson Mandela that in 1944 young men met at the Bantu Men's Social Centre and formed the Youth League. Anton Zembede was elected the first President and Nelson Mandela, David Bopape, Walter Sisulu and Oliver Tambo were among those elected to the Executive Committee. That Executive Committee, in one way or another, has been going since before I was born. It is amazing to observe the length of the struggle. The 27 years of imprisonment of Mr Mandela was only part of this period. The struggle has been going for many, many years, as many members are aware, particularly if they have read the full authorised biography of Nelson Mandela.
The changes we have proposed to the motion have been put forward on the basis of advice as well as discussion in our joint party room. There is no ideological twist to the changes we have proposed. I will not bore the Assembly; but, to give one example, the words "free and democratic", as Dr Kinloch indicated, import all of the notions of non-racism and all the rest. I think that if my colleague Mr Connolly contemplated for a moment, and had we had the chance to talk, he would understand why it is necessary that the wording of this motion, as an important instrument nationally as it now will be, simply be good. There is no inference to be drawn from the taking out of what I perceive to be a tautology in the words "unjustified" and "political". They imply the same thing in my view, and the style of the motion seems to be important.
Mr Berry: Rubbish!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .