Page 4496 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
international issue when Mr Pratt was detained preventively for allegedly spying. I say “allegedly”; I am being kind.
Did he expect the states and territories to agitate on his behalf? I wonder what he would have thought had none of the heads of government in Australia or none of the parliaments in Australia, except perhaps the federal parliament, agitated on his behalf. Is it not remarkable that we have in this parliament a person who was preventively detained for spying in a foreign country, detained without charge, who now argues in favour of the imposition of exactly the same regime in Australia? What a remarkable turnaround!
Is it not interesting, in the context of this assault on me for taking an interest in national issues and even perhaps from time to time making comment on issues that affect Australia internationally, that the final, killer blow delivered by Mr Mulcahy in his presentation today was to criticise me for refusing to take up the issue of whaling! How remarkable! It is inappropriate for me to put a position on the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq; that is off the agenda; an ACT head of government should not involve himself in discussions on the lack of progress in relation to reconciliation; an ACT chief minister should not, on behalf of the residents of the ACT, express an opinion, in Mr Seselja’s view, about the detention of refugees within the desert—children behind razor wire. Mr Seselja thinks it is okay for us to remain silent on the detention of children in the desert behind razor wire.
He thinks it is okay for me to remain silent in relation to the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. In fact, he insists I remain silent in relation to that. But it is okay to make representations in relation to international whaling. Why is it okay to make representations in relation to international whaling? Mr Mulcahy has just berated me for refusing to take up the cudgels in relation to international whaling, in the same debate in which he and other speakers berated me for daring to talk about the detention of David Hicks, an appalling blemish on Australia as a nation, a blemish which we will not, in our history, be able to expunge.
Nor will we as a nation ever be able to dilute the stain involved in the invasion of Iraq—never, ever. These are stains that this nation will carry for the rest of its history. But do not talk about those; do not get involved in those; do not get involved in those indelible stains which will never be removed from this nation’s history—ever, ever, ever—but make representations in relation to international whaling or else be condemned.
Then we have Mrs Dunne circulating a petition in relation to the execution of an Australian in Singapore. We have this Assembly debating and unanimously agreeing to a motion as a result of that particular event—embracing the motion, deciding unanimously, yes. The Liberals can get involved in those debates in relation to which they feel comfortable, like the death penalty, but will they talk about the detention of children in refugee camps?
Will they talk about the invasion of Iraq? Will they talk about the immoral, appalling detention of David Hicks without charge for four years in Guantanamo Bay? No, we will not talk about those things. Will we talk about the lack of progress in relation to reconciliation? No, let us not talk about that. That is a little bit too embarrassing because we have some of this on our hands; we are complicit in some of these decisions. In fact, we support these decisions, as do our big brothers on the hill. We have these fellow
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .