Page 41 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I find it rather amusing in a way when I hear people say that sanctions should have been given more opportunity to take effect. They say that more time was required for the sanctions, imposed as part of the United Nations blockade against Iraq, on the land and on the sea and involving the stationing of Australian naval forces, to bite harder into the Iraqi economy and hence force a solution.
The reason I find this rather ironic is that we all know that those on the other side of the Assembly who are using that argument were totally opposed to the provision of Australian forces when the ships left late last year to help to impose the United Nations resolutions about sanctions. In other words, the situation is ludicrous. They said then that the use of Australian forces in the imposition of sanctions against Iraq was something which was totally alien and hostile; it was something which should not have been undertaken. Now, when the supposed deadline has passed and armed conflict has inevitably resulted, they say that we should have allowed more time for sanctions to be applied. Clearly it is a non sequitur and an argument that goes round and round like a dog chasing its tail, which is very reminiscent of some of the statements that Mr Berry has made in the past.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot understand why some people will not endorse this quite clear and concise motion. It simply states in part that this Assembly "supports the United Nations' ongoing role in promoting world peace". It is remarkable that apparently we are going to have people voting against that. It continues and refers to the "self-determination of nations and in particular the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council directed towards ending Iraq's aggression towards Kuwait". As you have pointed out yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, the United Nations has passed some 10 or 12 resolutions. If the people opposite are opposed to that, then I think we are finally seeing the true edge of the hypocrisy that can be demonstrated by them. As my colleague Mr Collaery - - -
Ms Follett: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think we have had the word "hypocrisy" withdrawn many times before and I would ask that it be withdrawn again.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry. What was that again?
Ms Follett: Use of the word "hypocrisy".
Mr Humphries: Not in relation to members generally. Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: The rule has been applied to allegations of hypocrisy only against specific members, not against the Opposition generally, and that is the case here.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I think that is correct. I do not think it was directed to a specific member. Continue, Mr Duby.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .