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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 236 ..

Ms Tucker: Point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt! Point of order, Ms Tucker.

Ms Tucker: When someone stands up and says "point of order", you stop speaking. I would like to draw attention to standing order 42. I do not think Mr Pratt is aware that he is meant to address the Speaker. He does not like me answering, but he is directing all his comments to me. So maybe, Mr Speaker, you could point that out to him.

MR SPEAKER: I am sure Mr Pratt is now aware of standing order 42. Even when he provokes you, Ms Tucker, it is out of order for you to respond.

Ms Tucker: Yes, I realise that. I thought I would help him understand standing orders.

MR PRATT: Do I get a time out for that, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: No you don't.

MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I promise not to make Ms Tucker feel too uncomfortable. Security, defence and other trained and experienced risk analysis people will tell you that even were we to assess the forging of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction with al-Qaeda as being-to pull something out of the air-only a 30 per cent probability, strong justification would exist to remove that risk. The risk of miscalculating the "level of probability"is pretty damn horrible to contemplate.

I strongly support a UN led action to rid this threat, if only because a United States and UK led narrow coalition is just not going to cope in Iraq after the battle. A UN led broad coalition, one more subtly equipped than a US presence, will be necessary for many years to win and keep the peace and then steer the growth of a new and free Iraq. Understandably, the UN will, of course, require US power to back it up. To that end, I vigorously continue to encourage the federal government to pursue a strong UN leadership in resolving this Iraqi nightmare.

I favour and encourage more time and greater energy being given to exhaust the UN options. But time cannot be limitless because, very simply, there is a clear and present danger for the Iraqi people, for the Middle East and here in this country, if weapons of mass destruction are not eradicated and the regime is not removed.

The federal government is doing the best any government could do, faced with very difficult conditions and certain stark and grim realities-realities that are naively and comprehensively ignored by some here today. To call home our defence forces would be ludicrous and pathetically irresponsible. (Extension of time granted.)

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