Page 3598 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (4.11): I had not intended to address this MPI this afternoon; but, given the last speaker's comments, I cannot help but come to my feet to address a number of the issues. One of the real difficulties that we have as a nation is coming to grips with our history. Part of that history, Madam Speaker, has been outlined by Mrs Grassby and other speakers this afternoon. Part of our history has also been outlined by the ridiculous way in which Mr Cornwell attempted to address the matter. With what I would call some frivolity, Mr Cornwell basically belittled the issues that have been raised by the other speakers this afternoon. This is a tactic not dissimilar to that which is used by people with a view that is in direct contradiction to the majority view in this country. Nevertheless, Mr Cornwell has a right to hold that view. But Mr Cornwell, in my view, however open he believes that debate should be, does not have the right to denigrate a person's view because of their race, because of their religion, because of their colour or because of, in particular but not exclusively, their political beliefs.
Racism, as we know it, has been caused by all of those things, and it is not a matter to be scorned off lightly. We should not allow, as an example, the immigration debate to degenerate into what, quite frankly, would be an exercise of name-calling and overt racism. My own view in relation to immigration is that, once a government has determined the number of people acceptable to come into this country, issues of race, colour and religion should play absolutely no part in determining from what part of the world those immigrants come. As I understand the thrust of what Mr Cornwell was saying, that would not be accepted by Mr Cornwell.
I doubt very much whether the views expressed by Mr Cornwell this afternoon are views which are held by all of the members of his own party room. They are certainly not the views held by members on this side of the house, or the majority of the Independents in this house. It concerns me greatly that we have a member of this Assembly trying to denigrate the substance of this issue and the real concern that the Australian people have about this issue in the rather jocular and flippant way that he did this afternoon.
MADAM SPEAKER: The discussion is concluded.
BAIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Speaker's Ruling
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, on Wednesday, 25 November 1992, Mr Humphries presented to the Assembly the Bail (Amendment) Bill 1992. I have examined the Bill and note that clause 4, the substantive clause of the Bill, is the same in substance as amendments moved by Mr Humphries during the detail stage of the Bail Bill 1992. Mr Humphries's amendments in question were moved on 14 May this year, debated and negatived by the Assembly, so the object of the Bill is the same as that of earlier amendments. Standing order 136 states:
The Speaker may disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during that calendar year, has been resolved in the affirmative or the negative ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .