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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3060 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

voting with the government. He would have been better to say nothing tonight rather than say what he said.

I really could not hear all of it because I was discussing some issues with the Clerk, but I did hear him refer to a hate relationship. He did not want a hate relationship. That is offensive. I have made it quite clear through my presentation that I am not isolationist. Nowhere was there any mention of hate from this side of the chamber, or from Mr Kaine or from Mr Osborne. What we have raised are issues of civil inherent rights. Mr Moore then made a trite homily about his daughter learning Chinese and presented himself as a wise and guiding light. That is not addressing the issue and it was also offensive.

Mr Stefaniak made the comment that, somehow, I am so left how could I possibly criticise the communist regime? Mr Stefaniak, not quite; close enough. Mr Stefaniak, if you had been listening to the debate you would know that I am focusing on issues of human rights. I would have thought that was the issue you should have been addressing, not making ridiculous comments about Left and Right. Then I heard Mr Stanhope do it. I cannot believe that. Mr Stanhope of all people. He must be so embarrassed. I see that there is not one Labor member in this place. I understand that maybe they are not going to come back in, and that is pathetic. If they feel so uncomfortable with this proposal they should be voting against it.

I heard Mrs Carnell talking about the benefits of engagement. I addressed that in my presentation speech. I made it quite clear that, according to those people who are watchers of human rights around the world, since bilateral engagement and the softly, softly approach, things have got worse, not better. Mr Stefaniak said things have got better since 20 years ago. Yes. Then they have got worse in the last 10 years, and in the last couple of years since the softly, softly approach has been taken.

Mr Stefaniak said, "We will be able to deal with these issues when we do our education exchanges." Mr Stefaniak, I will give you leave to stand up and tell us how many times you mentioned human rights when you were in China last week, and Mrs Carnell as well. I would like to know how many times you raised these issues and what the response was. I would really like to know the response, too, if you did raise them. I am sure other members of this Assembly also would like to know exactly what came of that.

I cannot believe sometimes how you can put up arguments and it is as if people were not in the chamber at all. How many members here said, "It's not good to be isolationist and you must not do that," as if I have said I want that. I said clearly in my speech that I am not isolationist. I do not want to isolate China. I just do not want to congratulate China.

Mrs Carnell said that Phnom Penh was in a proposal that I made. That did come to me from the aid community a couple of years ago. From memory it was after Pol Pot and the whole brutal regime there collapsed and we actually had a democracy. It was not perfect. I am not saying it was perfect, but what we saw at that point in time was an opportunity for that devastated tragic country to move forward. What was put to me as a proposal from members of the community, once again-it was not my idea-was that, as we had cancelled Versailles, couldn't we have some kind of relationship with a developing country that was altruistic?

Ms Carnell: It was a sister city relationship.

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