Page 50 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
suggestion over the last few years by some people, perhaps blinded to history, that we could not get involved in a war. Events have proven that to be totally wrong.
So, is Australia well defended? Those of us who have had an involvement in the military know the answer to that question. We are not at all well defended. There are serious morale problems because of lack of support of our forces by the Government - lack of support in money; lack of support in conditions; lack of support in morale; lack of a statement that the Government is behind the forces.
I believe that in Australia we should have the same sort of defence that Switzerland has. Every country needs a standing army, but a standing army is vastly different from a citizens militia. A standing army could be more readily used in an aggressive manner. For those who want peace, one would suggest that a citizens militia would be a far more peaceful alternative to a large standing army.
Yet in Australia, what do we see in State after State after State and also in this Assembly? A cry for weapons control - not just guns, but all weapons. If Australians are silly enough ever to allow the Government of Australia or the governments of the States to disarm the population, they will indeed rue the day. We live, unfortunately, in a world that can be violent. The greatest way for peace is to be well defended. Perhaps, rather than removing the weapons of Australians, we could well teach people how to control them well and look to our own defence and sovereignty.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (5.03): Mr Speaker, we have asked ourselves several times in this debate already why it is that we are debating this matter. Mr Berry's point of order at the beginning of the debate related to that same point. The answer, Mr Speaker, is a very simple one, and for the benefit of those opposite I will repeat it. The fact is that there are Canberrans - not just Australians but Canberrans - who are fighting in the Persian Gulf for the reasons that make up the substance of this debate. We have every right as an Assembly to debate the reasons for those fellow Canberrans being in the Gulf and the reasons for which they are putting their lives on the line.
They want to know - I think those soldiers have every right to know - whether they have the support of the Australian people in the war that they are fighting, one might say, on our behalf. It is a very reasonable question and one which I think all of us ought to address in the course of this debate. The answer to that question should, of course, be "Yes". People need very good reasons to offer their lives in any conflict. I believe, Mr Speaker, fundamentally, that in this war there are very good reasons for people to offer their lives. The reason why we engage in this debate today is that we want to affirm those reasons and reinforce those reasons for the sake of those people who are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .