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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1717 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

federal government to intervene to overturn that provision of the Tasmanian Crimes Act as recently as five years ago to remove that stain from the statute books of one of the jurisdictions of this nation? I am sure they will not. I am sure Mr Moore would not say that he is prepared to stand up and say that the federal government should not have intervened to overturn the provisions of the Tasmanian Crimes Act that prohibited homosexual men from engaging in consensual sexual intercourse.

So there are precedents. There are circumstances in which it is appropriate, and we all accept that. We all must accept that there will be cases where it is simply the only thing that can and should be done; that the Commonwealth should intervene in the most serious circumstances. The Chief Minister acknowledges that in her submission to the Senate-that she does not think this is a serious enough case. I simply cannot understand how one can conclude that this is not a serious enough case.

All we are asking in relation to Senator Herron's submission in relation to the Bringing them home report is that this Assembly, on behalf of the people of the ACT, indicate to the Prime Minister that it rejects the notion that there was no stolen generation in the context in which the term is used in that report. That is what we are asking. We are asking this Assembly to indicate to the Prime Minister that we reject that notion and that the Commonwealth should simply reject it by whatever means are available to them, perhaps by a supplementary submission or in some other way.

In relation to the document of reconciliation which the Chief Minister will receive this Saturday from the representatives of the Aboriginal people and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, it seems to me quite ironic that she should not be prepared to indicate to the Prime Minister in this same week that she nevertheless is prepared to consider that his document is more authentic or more real or more worthy of consideration than that of the council.

The three proposals that are encompassed within this motion are all quite straightforward. They are concrete examples of what this Assembly can do to represent the fact that it is genuine about reconciliation; that it is not just paying lip service; that we are not simply going to move a motion once a year about our determination to continue to engage in the process of reconciliation, and when there are positive things that we can do to indicate the strength of our commitment to reconciliation we turn our back and refuse to do them.

This is a chance to stand up and say, "Yes, I genuinely want reconciliation with the indigenous people of Australia, and yes, I am prepared to take the hard yards to achieve it. I am prepared to stand out and say to governments that do not respect the rights of indigenous people that they are wrong, and that we are prepared to take those steps."

Question put:

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