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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3029 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

It would be different, perhaps, if it were not with the national capital of the country, but the Chinese see a great deal of political significance in establishing this sort of relationship with Canberra, the national capital of Australia. It is not just a one-to-one friendship thing so far as the Chinese government is concerned. There are far deeper implications than that. Yet our Chief Minister is so naive as to think that we can go into this relationship and get some benefit from it.

I repeat: we have been getting the benefits for quite a long time now without this sort of relationship. I am sure that they will continue, because it is in China's interests that they should. This is just one step too far. I do not support this proposal.

MS TUCKER (5.21): In my view, this debate is about ethics. It appears that the ACT government prefers to absent itself from any ethical issues with a national or international dimension. The debate earlier this year on mandatory sentencing was a case in point. Members of the ACT government were most reluctant to express any view on the ethics or justice of the mandatory sentencing regimes in the Northern Territory and Western Australia and chose instead to argue the rights of state and territory governments.

Similarly, when it came right down to neighbouring forests and the health of the bioregion of which Canberra is a critical part, this ACT government was shrill in its contention that it was not our place to seek to influence New South Wales decisions. But this debate is closer to home. It is about the creation of a sister city relationship with Beijing, so it reflects both on our principles and on those of our sister-to-be. The ethics in this instance are inescapable.

I raised the issue of the deteriorating human rights record in China in a letter to the Chief Minister in June of this year. In her reply to me in July, the Chief Minister wrote:

But a sister city relationship with the capital of China will not be merely a link at community level, a series of connections from school to school or from business to business. These links exist and will continue to exist and to develop, sister city or not. I commend Mr Kaine's comment that it will be construed by the international community as a relationship between two capital cities. It is quite clear that it will be seen as that.

A sister city relationship is, in fact, a form of congratulatory partnership. It is one of celebration and of mutual admiration. It is a vehicle through which this government aligns itself to the governing body of Beijing for mutual recognition, mutual benefit and mutual esteem. In forming such a close partnership, clearly we will be lending our support to the practices of that government. That is inescapable.

It is simply not possible in taking this action to surrender all responsibility for human rights to the Commonwealth. If we choose to lend credibility, esteem, recognition and favour to our sister government, then the human rights record of our sister must and will,

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