Page 2812 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think "incredible hypocrisy" has been ruled unparliamentary, but as I do not understand what Mr Stevenson is saying I will not pursue the point. However, he might be reminded that those phrases have been ruled on in the past.
MADAM SPEAKER: I take advantage of the pause in proceedings to focus your attention on the relevancy provisions of our standing orders, Mr Stevenson, and to ask you to speak to your amendment.
MR STEVENSON: Madam Speaker, I can think of nothing more relevant than to give examples to do with international treaties. What is it that my amendment talks about if it is not specifically international treaties? I have already agreed fully with the rest of the motion. What I disagree with implacably is that countries should have their rights overridden by some international groups. The point I made was that it was hypocritical in the extreme to state that Australians should not have the right to appeal to the Privy Council but, once that is done away with, to force us into a situation where people can appeal to international courts, which can then override sovereign law in Australia. While I may be the only one speaking on these matters today, in time in Australia there will be many more.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.43): It was not my intention to speak on this matter, but the comments and contribution made by Mr Stevenson have drawn me into the debate. I am most disturbed at the sort of line Mr Stevenson has adopted. I am pleased that he has been exposed again for his out-of-step approach to international relations and the empowerment of people in countries where they are being oppressed. I say to you that, if in the far distant future there were a regime in this country that oppressed the people, I would want something like the United Nations to look after the interests of the people. When Mr Stevenson argues that the United Nations ought not step in to do something about the oppression in countries such as Uganda and that we should not have some sort of international body that can move on countries that oppress their peoples, Mr Stevenson is out of touch with the rest of the world.
What he is suggesting is that if there is oppression in a country it ought to be allowed to continue, because nobody else can interfere. That is an outrageous suggestion. That is what you are suggesting. You are saying that what occurred in Chile for generations should continue to occur, that there should be no move to democracy in Chile. What you are saying is that anywhere else in Latin America where there has been oppression you should ignore it; you should not interfere with the sovereignty of that country; you should do nothing about oppression. This is absolutely outrageous.
To raise these socialist world government arguments, and the Rome-Moscow-Jerusalem axis and all this sort of claptrap is an absolutely outrageous position. I have to say that those sorts of comments bring nothing but disgrace to you and some odour to this Assembly.
Mr Stevenson: When I get a chance I will be happy to comment on the United Nations move into Katanga in the Congo.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .