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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3033 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Chinese government is unlikely to change its approach to human rights in response to our friendly overtures. After all, it will be applause that we shower upon them. All we could possibly achieve in making Beijing our sister city is adding a little gloss to appearances. Is that our intent in regard to human rights? While Tiananmen Square has scarred many memories, evidently it means very little to the ACT government. A sister city relationship with Beijing reflects very harshly on those who support it.

Also, we have the issue of religious suppression, which I have mentioned to some degree already. There are many practitioners in Australia. They do not constitute a political movement, whatever the Chinese Embassy staff may say. There are many people here who are attempting to continue their meditation practices and who are actually being victimised in Australia for continuing those practices.

They are alleging that they are under surveillance in Australia. We know from councils that municipal libraries in Sydney have been advised or encouraged to take Falun Gong books off the shelves. Falun Dafa participation in community festivals is being reversed or challenged. It appears that people in Australia are already becoming complicit in Chinese repression. I do not see how a sister city relationship with Beijing will do anything other than implicate us further in that process. I might say that the councils respond differently to these sorts of phone calls from Chinese officials. Some councils say yes and some councils say, "No, this is a free country and we will have what we like in our festivals or our libraries."

And what of the Labor opposition in this debate? The ACT government would fail on this motion were it not for the support of the ALP. I understand that, because the Chief Minister has so assiduously promoted relationships of every sort with China, the Labor Party now believes that we are beyond the point of no return. On that basis, the ACT Labor Party would have supported a sister city partnership with Johannesburg when Nelson Mandela was in jail. As long as Chief Minister Kate Carnell was there to drag us down the path, the Labor Party would have been quite comfortable tagging along behind.

I have real difficulty in understanding why they have taken this approach. I can only presume that members of the opposition-I do not think that it would be all of them-believe that they can enjoy the benefits of this sister city experience when government arrives in their lap without having to carry the can for it. I note Mr Stanhope's innovative proposal to send Rosemary Follett to China so that she can set up a branch of the ACT human rights office. Mr Stanhope may recall that we are losing human rights apace in Australia, even Canberra, despite Ms Follett's best efforts.

Beijing is a massive city and the Chinese regime is resolute in showing very little tolerance for dissent or worship. I do not know what Rosemary Follett thinks of the proposal of Mr Stanhope, but sending Canberra's Discrimination Commissioner to Beijing is entirely unlikely to shift the balance. In fact, the Australian government has been providing training in human rights to people who work for the military regime in Burma. I think we can all see the stunning effect that this initiative is having on freedom of religious and political expression in that country right now. As members would be well aware, I am sure, San Suu Kyi has been put under house arrest again after having been denied freedom of access through her own country for 8 days.

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