Page 4734 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 13 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
more productive for you to stay in the ACT and focus on dealing with these problems rather than tilting at windmills round Australia?
MR STANHOPE: I had intended, quite fortuitously, to visit Melbourne over last weekend, which in any event I did. It was my granddaughter’s first birthday and I wanted to share that time with her. The last time I had seen my granddaughter was about six months ago when I travelled to Melbourne to participate in her christening, her baptism into the Catholic Church, of which she and her family are members—strong, participating members—and it was with great pleasure that I visited Melbourne then to attend St Finbar’s church, where my granddaughter was christened into the Catholic Church. That was the last time that I visited Melbourne.
I thought that it was quite coincidental, in fact, that the two visits that I was to take to Melbourne this year were associated with the Catholic Church, in the first instance to participate in the christening of my granddaughter, my only granddaughter, as a member of the Catholic Church at St Finbar’s church. I thought that it was coincidental that my second visit to Melbourne following the christening of my granddaughter at a Catholic church was to be, again, at the invitation of the Catholic Church. I am very pleased that the invitation to attend my granddaughter’s christening was not withdrawn.
The second invitation that I received to a Catholic Church function in Melbourne, unfortunately, was terminated at the behest of the Catholic Church because some within the church thought that, in some way, it would be inappropriate for a person who supports the right of a woman to have an abortion to speak at a Catholic-sponsored function about the need for a national bill of rights. I have to say that the link—and I still grapple with it—does evade me to some extent.
I will not say too much, other than to express my continuing regret, following the enormous pride that I felt in getting the invitation, that the Archbishop of Melbourne was so imposed upon by the right-to-life movement within his church that in order to avoid an unseemly scene at the speech—as expressed to me, there was concern that the meeting would become unruly and out of order as a result of the angst which some apparently feel towards me as a result of the fact that I support the right of women to choose an abortion as an option—I am, I presume, to be barred forever from darkening the doors of Catholic churches.
I do not say that lightly. I find it quite remarkable and ironic that the very night before I received notice of the withdrawal of an invitation to deal with, amongst other things, the freedoms that we enjoy, including the freedom of speech, a situation in which I was invited to address the importance of human rights in 2005, one of which is the fundamental right of freedom of speech, I shared the platform at a significant function within the Assembly with Father Frank Brennan, who spoke about the need for a national bill of rights and the central message of Father Brennan’s presentation was the centrality of freedom of speech. I think that he said something to the effect that freedom of speech above all but freedom of speech backed by a bill of rights.
I cannot express that as eloquently as he did, but it was interesting to me and highly ironic to find within a day of sharing a platform with Father Frank Brennan—Professor Brennan, a professor at the Australian Catholic University—during which he spoke passionately about his commitment to a bill of rights, spoke deeply about the importance
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .