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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 474 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

been found to be in breach by the UN. So I used the language "may be in breach". That is the explanation, if that makes any difference to how Mr Kaine thinks about this motion.

To turn to the points raised by other members: I do not know how I can respond to Mr Rugendyke. Once again, he has made a broad statement which has no substance and which does not address any of my arguments. He said that it is "a broad-brush greenie motion". That tells me a lot. How can I respond to that? Maybe I should go back and argue every point again. I did not think it was broad-brushed; I thought it was very specific. That was why I asked for unlimited time to get through the detail of this motion.

The basic position being put by government - and I am particularly disappointed in Mr Moore - is that they care. Of course they care; they are good people. This reminds me of the discussion that took place on corporate morality in the late seventies. Maybe some members remember it. The example used was that of executives of tobacco companies and how these people as executives of tobacco companies could have a particular corporate morality and then on the weekends go to church like good people. They are moral people, they go to church. But there are two different moralities there. I believe we have political morality, which is the immorality being demonstrated here today.

The members who have said they will not support this motion say their reason is that of states rights. That was the position put forward in the submission of Mrs Carnell. Those members are supporting the submission of the Government. That position is so offensive to so many people in this country.

Another question that has to be asked from listening to the statements of Mr Moore, government members and Mr Kaine is: What is the purpose of international conventions and treaties? Why do we sign them? What these members should be saying now is: "We don't want conventions".

I also read out the legal advice. Members probably do not remember, because Mr Berry tells me that people are not here to listen. What I read out in my speech was the legal interpretation of the relationship of State and Territories to international conventions. That is an issue of Australian law. What I do not understand is members who are saying, "No, no, it's fine. We have to worry about states rights and our right to enact laws". What are you saying about conventions then? Are you saying we should not have any? What do you say about past conventions used for the Franklin Dam and gay rights? Do you think that should not have happened? Maybe that should have happened; maybe that was extreme and compelling enough. No-one has told me here what would be extreme or compelling enough.

Some people are implying that nothing could be compelling enough. In that case, I would want to rewrite everything. We will put in a submission saying that we do not want international conventions - except the WTO, which the Liberals quite like because it is about liberalising trade. The argument has to be followed through. Mr Moore tries

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