Page 2811 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (11.36): Mr Stevenson's objection and his amendment to the motion raise a very important issue, and that is the right to free speech. It is interesting that we sit around here and respect his right to have his opinion and to present that opinion. We may disagree with it; it seems to me that there are 16 members who disagree with him on this very vital issue. Some of us probably feel very sad that we cannot present a unanimous resolution, if that is what is going to happen - and I do not want to pre-empt the vote. If it is the case that we cannot present a unanimous resolution, that is a very sad situation. However, it does at least present the fact that we resolve problems by debate and we recognise other people's human rights, in particular in this case their right to free speech. Therefore, I will be opposing the amendment, and I take great pleasure in supporting the motion.
MR STEVENSON (11.37), by leave: I think Mr Moore's point was well made. We do stand for freedom of speech, and the way to maintain freedom of speech in this nation is not to allow it to be abrogated by laws made in other countries. The people of Australia should determine what happens in Australia. The people of Uganda should determine what happens in Uganda. One could well ask whether the people of Uganda were asked whether they wanted to join the United Nations.
Mr Berry: They would not get the chance to reply anyway.
MR STEVENSON: That would be the point. I well understand the human rights violations in Uganda. They do not approach the disaster caused by AIDS in that country. There are many problems in African countries. Anything we or anyone else in Australia, or in overseas countries, can do to support human rights, to support the right of individuals to stand up for freedom in their own country, I accept fully. But I do not accept the idea that we should have a world order that determines how countries should operate. I do not accept the idea that we should have a world order that tells people in countries how to operate, particularly a number of Western countries that have a proud tradition of rights not seen in other countries, most of which made up the initial push for the United Nations.
I support these things. I may be alone in standing against the idea that international treaties should determine what happens in sovereign countries. I note that many politicians in this nation worked to destroy the right of Australians to appeal to the Privy Council in England, and I was just waiting for a moment - - -
Mr Connolly: Yes, absolutely, a great achievement for Australia, with the support of Labor and Liberal State governments.
MR STEVENSON: I paused, waiting a moment for the Attorney-General, Terry Connolly, to make the inevitable comment: "A good thing too; we should have". What about the incredible hypocrisy of Mr Connolly supporting the right of individuals in Australia to have a case heard before the international courts and the right of international courts to override the sovereignty of Australia? How do you say on the one hand that we should prevent Australians from going to the Privy Council and that it is good that that was stopped, and say on the other hand that we should - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .