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

None . . Page.. 820 ..

MS FOLLETT: The fact of the matter is that the sister city relationship with Nara is a complete red herring in this argument. There is only one government that has decided to resume nuclear testing in the Pacific, and that is the French Government. The question of the sister city relationship with Nara and the question of whaling or not whaling are simply not relevant to the debate we are having today. If members opposite want to raise that issue at some other time, they are quite welcome to do so.

Mrs Carnell: No; you are the one who is raising it.

MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, if Mrs Carnell persistently interrupts, I will have to ask you to protect me from her.

I do also want to make the point - I think, contrary to the gist of what Ms Tucker was saying - that I am a strong supporter of sister city relationships, and the reason I support them is that I believe that they are a very substantial force for greater understanding and, therefore, for world harmony. The fact that they are conducted at a people-to-people level, I believe, is useful and productive in achieving both of those objectives. I therefore support the notion of sister city relationships, and I would, in other circumstances, have supported a relationship with Versailles. But we cannot ignore the decision the French Government has taken; nor can we ask some other level of government to make our protest for us; nor can we, as Mr Moore unsuccessfully sought to do, protest only against people who do not agree with us. That is a nonsense.

I ask members to imagine, if they will, what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. If it were the Australian Government who had recommenced nuclear testing, say, in the countryside of Provence, or in the Mediterranean off Nice, what would be the attitude of the people of Les Yvelines in the Versailles region? They would be outraged. They would seek to sever relations with the people of Canberra. I have no doubt whatsoever of that.

For that reason, I again commend the motion to the Assembly. I believe that it is the appropriate form of protest for the people of Canberra to make in a civilised, lawful and peaceful manner, and I urge the Government to show some leadership by offering the people of the Territory this peaceful and lawful avenue of protest. It is a question of leadership. Of course, the boycott is also important, but there are many people who have probably never bought a French product in their lives. There are even more people who have spent the last several years conscientiously buying Australian, and I am one of them. Whether it is clothing or drink or whatever, I make every effort to buy Australian. We need the two actions to be taken simultaneously.

Mr Speaker, to conclude, we have no objection to Mr Humphries's amendment to the motion, but that amendment cannot stand alone. It is essential that the people of this Territory also have a suitable avenue to express their outrage at this matter, and that is the substantial motion.

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