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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1038 ..

Mr Berry: Remember your comments about backyards in the ACT?

MR HUMPHRIES: Those comments were endorsed by the Labor Government at the time, which then went on to pass the legislation that I asked for. If those comments were racist, obviously the same Government that passed the comments that I had called for was also racist. Mr Speaker, my record on the subject is quite clean.

Pauline Hanson is accused of dividing Australia. She has certainly succeeded in dividing this Assembly today. The debate, regrettably, has become a forum for us all to air our pet grievances and point to either - - -

Mr Moore: No, not all.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not true. I withdraw that. For many members - - -

Mr Berry: I missed out on Michael. There were a few things I wanted to say about what he said, too.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, I am sure there were. You will have plenty of opportunities to do that, Mr Berry. It has been an opportunity for people to point their fingers at their favourite bogypeople, including economic rationalism, Philip Ruddock, John Herron and the capitalist system. Mr Speaker, what I think those comments in this debate demonstrate is that what we have here is a phenomenon which needs to be addressed in a sophisticated way. Mr Berry, in his comments, said that the only thing that needs to be done in this debate to deal with the problems that have been raised is for assemblies like this one to emphatically pass the motion which has been put by Mr Wood. Let me say that, although I and my colleagues intend enthusiastically to support the motion moved by Mr Wood, I think that the suggestion that parliaments passing motions is the way to deal with these problems is quite mistaken. There is a much more important place for us to be taking these arguments to, and that is out in the broader community.

We in this place, I think, to a man and a woman, believe in the pluralist, multicultural, tolerant society that has been built in this nation over the last few decades. We all acknowledge that we have further to go down the path towards a society which achieves the goals that we articulate, but we all argue for that kind of society. There are some people out in the community who do not support those concepts, and they are the people who play on and draw comfort from the comments made by Pauline Hanson. It is not enough for us to stand in this place and condemn them, to point the finger at them and say, "Pauline Hanson is a racist; Pauline Hanson is wrong; Pauline Hanson must be" - to use Mr Berry's words - "suppressed". That is not the important work that we have to do. As the Chief Minister said earlier in this debate, it is the work that we do out in the community that is as important.

Ms Tucker: Government policies need to change to address inequities.

MR HUMPHRIES: That may be, as far as you are concerned, Ms Tucker; but I think Mr Moore summarised this best when he said that the best response to the Pauline Hanson phenomenon is not legislation, but by fighting the Pauline Hanson phenomenon in the marketplace of ideas. I think motions in this place are fine. As I said,

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