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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1018 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

this country. In this place we have had some very good and meaningful debates about what reconciliation really means. It can be seen as a series of steps. I think the outline put together by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation says it all. The council stated that reconciliation is about:

exploring, understanding and accepting the history of our shared experience;

acknowledging that past injustice continues to give rise to present injustices for Indigenous Australians;

discovering a common heritage together respecting Indigenous cultures and identity;

removing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage;

participating in acts of reconciliation; and

renewing our national identity and citizenship.

I think it embraces Mr Moore's comments that we all did not start from the same spot; we were not all born with the same level of advantage in our society. Past disadvantages can produce and have produced present but, hopefully, not future disadvantages; and it is up to Australia, it is up to leaders in our community, to get out there and make sure that the society that we want to live in, that we want our children to live in, is one that is not based on the sort of xenophobia, the sort of racial intolerance and the sort of misinformation and ignorance that I believe Pauline Hanson's book and comments are based on. But, as Mr Moore said, the problem with misinformation that catches on in the community is usually that it is misinformation with an element of truth in it; and certainly that is the case here. It is up to us, as leaders in our community, to stand up and say that it is not all right; our future is with multiculturalism; our future is with reconciliation. It is certainly not with Pauline Hanson.

MS TUCKER (11.07): The so-called Pauline Hanson debate is about putting people in boxes - boxes of colour, race, sexuality, whatever. It is obviously not about acceptance, compassion or embracing diversity. I do think the debate has been missing one important point, and I will dwell on that in my speech today. I think the Federal Government's handling of the whole affair has been appalling, and the only reason they have lifted a finger at all is apparently economic and trade impacts. I would certainly like to reiterate the comments made by Bishop George Browning that we should not have to defend a multicultural society on the basis of economics. It is much more than economics. It is about accepting that we are all different and yet all equal; all part of the same species; all deserving of equal access to good food, to quality health services, to affordable and appropriate housing, to high-quality education, to meaningful employment and to a safe environment; all deserving of clean air, water and soil; all deserving of leadership from government which will ensure these fundamental rights exist for all citizens.

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