Page 2174 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 22 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
same party is now bleating that we need to look after Timor. Remember what happened in 1980 when “Biggles” Evans toasted his Indonesian counterparts in a plane over the Timor Sea as they celebrated the Timor oil treaty that was signed by the then Labor government and the Indonesians. There was no interest in Timor then. No, there was “Biggles”, drinking champagne in a plane over the Timor Sea and saying, “Timor? Timor what? Timor where? Timor—oh, we must have forgotten about them.” We now have this feigned interest in Timor by Mr Gentleman, whereas history shows that one has to question what the Labor Party stands for on the whole issue of Timor.
Mr Speaker, I move the following amendment circulated in my name:
Omit paragraph (4).
I urge members of the Labor Party to look at what Mr Gentleman is actually saying in paragraph (4) of his motion. Do they believe that the interests of a country not our own should be of paramount—that is, supreme, pre-eminent and ultimate—concern? We are being asked here to approve the putting of another nation’s concerns before our own. We should be concerned about the effect of our actions on other nations as we should be concerned about the effect of their actions on us. But Mr Gentleman is asking that we as an Assembly tell the Australian government that its paramount concern during negotiations should be for somebody else’s country.
I put to the Assembly that it is an appalling thing for an elected representative in an Australian parliament to be saying that somebody else’s interest and not our own should be paramount—number one, supremo, pre-eminent, first—and that somebody else should be put first when we are elected to represent our jurisdictions and the commonwealth government is elected ultimately to represent us as a country.
Do not misrepresent me and say that I am against providing assistance to East Timor because I am not. But our role is to look after those people who elected us. I think we have a good influence and we should certainly assist in whichever way we can to make sure that things will occur to the benefit of both.
Mr Speaker, we can support paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of the motion. I note that really paragraph (1) is a Trojan horse. I am sure we will see lots of these sorts of motions because they give members some sort of opening to beat up the federal government in areas in which we do not have direct ministerial responsibility. It is a shame that they do not have more interest in matters happening in one of our own departments with the sacking of Totalcare workers.
As I said, we can support paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), but I would ask Mr Gentleman to withdraw paragraph (4). I believe the Australian government does negotiate in good faith. If Mr Gentleman can prove that this is not the case, then do so. I believe that the Australian government should never surrender its paramount concern for the Australian nation and the Australian people. As I say, Mr Gentleman should withdraw the fourth part of his motion.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.05): I would like to speak to the motion and Mr Smyth’s amendment. First of all, I will speak to Mr Smyth’s amendment. I feel that Mr Smyth has ignored one very important word in paragraph (4) of Mr Gentleman’s motion, which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .