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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2916 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We are people of the sea, and we find our basic food in this natural resource which is the Pacific Ocean. France always says: "Liberty, equality, fraternity". But I know that we cannot have equality without liberty. We cannot have fraternity without liberty, and we cannot have liberty without decolonisation.

I received a fax last month from another friend in Tahiti who informed me that Marguerite has died since that time. While I was in Tahiti I also met with union representatives who supported Marguerite's claims. Their statement makes it quite clear that many workers have died as a result of their work with the French.

Mr Humphries seems to be under the impression that the ban and the cessation of the sister-city relationship with Versailles had no impact. I even recall Mrs Carnell saying at one point that no-one in France watches ACT television. This shows a total misunderstanding of how non-government organisations have traditionally worked collectively to try to influence the policies of powerful governments. While this ban, you might claim, had no impact at all, the solidarity with the people of the Pacific was hugely important. It was the beginning of a relationship which I can see will be very greatly needed because of the policies of our Federal Government now and their reluctance to take any responsibility on greenhouse. I can see in the future there are going to be very strong relationships building up with the people of the Pacific because of the ongoing barbaric behaviour of their so-called developed, civilised-country neighbours.

The people of Polynesia, the Mahoi people, are people of the sea. It is the basis of their culture and is their livelihood. To those people who say that independence for these people is another issue and not to be dealt with in this debate, I remind you that the issue of testing has never even been debated in their territorial assemblies. Of course, France has caused the destruction of the Mahoi people's ability to live without their support. I notice also a comment in a letter - I think it was from Mrs Carnell again - how absurd it was to even look at the question of independence because they are so dependent on France economically. I am not denying that in any way. That is the obvious tragedy of the presence of France in the area. This is not an argument for not addressing the rights of those people to be free from the colonial collar of France. I would suggest that France should pay billions and billions of dollars in compensation to the people; that France should actually stay in Tahiti and in the area only for as long as it takes to assist these people to get the economy working for themselves; and that France will always be liable for the destruction that they have caused to these people and to the land. We now have people from the Australian Government going to the South Pacific Forum. Once again, France is going to be boycotted by those countries because they are so distressed at the lack of concern that France has continually shown towards the human rights of those people and towards the ecology of the region.

In conclusion, Mr Humphries picked up an error regarding the Prime Minister of France. I have to say I have been much more involved with the people of Tahiti and have kept in contact with those people who have to bear the consequences of France. In a recent local election we saw an increase in the number of seats held by the independent anti-nuclear party. We also saw an increase in Gaston Flosse's support. We are seeing

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