Page 2465 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 6 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is what the debate should have been about. It is not about our dropping atom bombs on Japan. We have never had nuclear capability, and nor will we ever. It is not about nuclear bombs and Hiroshima; it is not about mustard gas and Saddam Hussein; it is about defence equipment that our forces might need to defend this country. But I would not have minded if you had drawn the line somewhere and said, "There are some kinds of military equipment that we find objectionable". There are some forms of military equipment that I find objectionable - and I spent 22 years of my life in the military.
But I think you went right over the top, as you so often do. If you had bothered to consult, you might have found a solution that did not go so far, that would not have offended so many people and that would have allowed us to still have some industry in this town. But you do not want that; just drive them all away. Let us not talk about it; let us just hit them with a sledgehammer. Mr Speaker, frankly, I am appalled.
MR DUBY (9.24): Mr Speaker, I must compliment Mr Kaine; that was a wonderful speech. The only problem is, of course, that he did not address any of the issues that we are talking about tonight. We started off talking about - and I quote the matter of public importance:
The enormous damage done to Canberra's standing as a national and international conference and exhibition venue by the Follett Labor Government's attitude to AIDEX.
I think that a number of speakers tonight, myself included, have pointed out that no such damage of any kind has occurred. Indeed, I think it has been pointed out by some speakers that we may well have actually come out on the black side of the ledger, for once.
As I have pointed out, the queue to get into the Natex Centre is very long and very varied. The booking for 1993, I am sure, will be snapped up very quickly by an equivalent organisation. It may well be an organisation that is more profitable for the city. Mr Connolly quite rightly pointed out that the cost of policing another Penises for Peace demonstration will probably more than outweigh the revenue gained by the Territory from the hire of the venue.
So, we have gone on and progressed to bigger and better things. I think, as a matter of principle, the majority of members of this Assembly have said, "As a matter of fact, not only have we not done damage to Canberra's standing as a national and international conference and exhibition venue, but indeed this Assembly supports the stand taken. We do not want anything to do with the vicious armaments trade. It can be somewhere else". No-one is disputing the need for a well equipped, well armed and ready defence force for the defence of our country, and indeed other nations.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .