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

None . . Page.. 806 ..

The problem with this motion is that it is not logical. It is selective. It says that we will make a certain decision in respect of the French but not in respect of others. Let me point out to members that Canberra has a sister city relationship - a somewhat more government-to-government relationship - with the people of Nara. It is perfectly open to us, on the logic of the motion put forward by Ms Follett, to introduce an element of international politics into that relationship as well. I know that the Japanese Government has made a number of decisions that I personally have great cause to regret. As Minister for the Environment, for example, I am very concerned about the fact that the Japanese Government continues to sanction, indeed to sponsor, wide-scale whaling in this same South Pacific region. That has an enormously detrimental effect on the environment, and I think the members of this place ought to exhibit some of the strength of purpose, some of the resolve and vision which they claim is missing in this Government, by taking a stand on whaling as well.

The Japanese Government, as you, Mr Speaker, have pointed out, has not apologised for its atrocities during the Second World War. The Japanese Government continues to exercise the death penalty against its citizens. These are all decisions that I would have cause to regret. Are we going to be logical and exercise some international sanction against Japan by cancelling our sister city relationship with Nara? The logic, it seems to me, in both cases is quite irresistible, and I would particularly urge the Greens to consider their position in this respect. If we are serious about sending a message through these devices, let us do that as well. A failure to do so indicates that we are talking more about a selective use of such power than a consistent use of such power.

Mr Connolly has suggested that the previous Government was happy to proceed with a relationship with the French because there was no question of there having been testing in the South Pacific during the period of their stewardship of the ACT. I have to tell Mr Connolly and others that that is simply not true. The French Government, the Government of the former President, Mr Mitterand, ended French nuclear testing in 1992 - very late in his presidency, which began in 1981. Throughout the period from 1989 - with the exception of 1989 to 1991, of course - to 1992, when Ms Follett had substantial periods in government, the French were conducting nuclear tests, and the Government of Rosemary Follett continued to support the sister city relationship. Let me quote to members of the Assembly and table a letter sent by Ms Follett to the President of the Conseil General des Yvelines. It is not dated; but I understand that it is from about 1991 or 1992, when there was a relationship with Les Yvelines and a decision made to support and strengthen that relationship. The Chief Minister of the day said:

I wish the District of Yvelines well in its ongoing celebrations of the Bicentennial of the French Revolution -

it must have been 1989, obviously -

and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and trust that the relationship between our twin communities will prosper through future exchanges.

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