Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 818 ..

prepared to support the basic motion. How can you possibly say, “Recall the Ambassador to France, but reinforce the twin city agreement.”? So, yes, we are prepared not to play partisan politics and not to say, “Our Federal colleagues have said X, so we must rigidly bind to X”. We are prepared to say, “Yes, let us all take strong action”. But how can you possibly demand this, and say that we should recall ambassadors, cut off the military ties - last week they would have called for the frigate because that was the current Liberal line, but they came to their senses over this - but at the same time say, “You, Federal Government, must take this really strong action. We, the ACT Liberal Party, are the toughest against the French. We do not like the French any more than you do like the French. We want you to be really hairy chested. But we ourselves think it is a really good idea to sign a sister city agreement with the French.”?

So, on your cheap little political game here of putting before this Assembly the same text as was put by your colleagues up on the hill, we will see you and we will raise you. We will see you by saying, “Yes, we are prepared to support that, even though it is calling on the Federal Labor Government to be a little bit tougher”; but we will raise you by saying, “How can you possibly call for tough action from the Federal Government and roll over and expose your tummies on the sister city agreement?”. Mr Humphries earlier in the debate said, “This brings out the hypocrisy in all of us”. He was speaking for his Liberal colleagues and not for the Australian Labor Party.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (12.28): Mr Connolly, I am sure, would realise that recalling Australia's Ambassador to France does not actually close the embassy. It is a symbolic gesture to say that the Australian people are not happy. The embassy stays open because communication between Australia and France is absolutely essential to ensure that the French understand what Australia is thinking.

MR KAINE (12.29): Mr Speaker, I would like to comment on Mr Connolly's last comments. I noticed that earlier in the debate Mr Wood asked the question: What would have happened had this twinning arrangement not been signed until the day after? We are getting a bit hypothetical. The fact is that it was signed the day before. If Mr Connolly's and Mr Wood's line of argument is a valid one, they should be urging the Commonwealth to cancel all other treaties and agreements they have with the French - agreements such as, for example, on what happens in the Antarctic territories. Does Mr Connolly really mean that any agreement previously entered into by any government with the French Government should be set aside as part of our protest? I suggest not, Mr Speaker.

Mr Connolly wants to have his cake and he wants to eat it too. He wants to support Mr Keating, who will not do very much; but he wants to kick Kate Carnell in the head, as I said before. This debate that has been taking place this morning is not about our relationships with France; it is about the Opposition taking a cheap shot and seizing what it sees as an opportunity to kick the Chief Minister of the Territory in the head. Now we know exactly what their argument is, and I submit that the non-Government members and the non-Opposition members in this Assembly should note that carefully when they vote.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .