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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3040 ..


MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I believe that the Assembly should support the sister city arrangement with Beijing, not as a sign of condoning China's past record, but with a view to helping to foster a continued improvement of human rights issues in that country.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 pm

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (7.30): This is an issue that has occupied the thinking of the Labor Party for some weeks now in a quite serious way. It is an issue that is quite complex in terms of the process and the route by which we find ourselves debating a proposal for a sister city relationship between Canberra and Beijing.

The Chief Minister first wrote to me in relation to this on 17 August 2000. I think it is fair to say that the first formal notice or acknowledgment that I or the Labor Party had that it was proposed that there be a sister city relationship between Canberra and Beijing was in the Chief Minister's letter of the 17th. I did have some notice prior to that, of course, with Ms Tucker's proposal that the ACT not assist with a sister city relationship between Canberra and Beijing. It was not until some time after that, as I say, 17 August, that Ms Carnell formally wrote and asked for support of her proposal to enter into a sister city relationship with Beijing.

I was concerned at that late notice, having regard to the advice that it was proposed that the sister city relationship be formalised on 13 September, next Tuesday. So we have what I regard as quite a remarkable circumstance-formal advice on 17 August that the Chief Minister would be seeking Assembly support for a sister city arrangement which it was proposed be formalised on 13 September. So, of course, I asked Ms Carnell, the Chief Minister, for some advice and justification for the proposal, not having been formally involved prior to that time. I wrote to her on 21 August and I said:

Thank you for your letter of 17 August informing me of your intention to move this motion... You have asked for Labor's support of your motion.

Before Labor could offer such report, we will need further advice from you. First, we need definitive advice from you of the tangible benefits to Canberra of the proposed sister city arrangement. In this context, I note your comment that under existing arrangements there are already a number of business initiatives under way. Given this success why do we need a sister city relationship and how would these initiatives be advanced by it?

You say in your letter that there have been approaches from numerous other cities. Could you give me the names of these other cities and the reason for declining their approaches. I am interested also in the reasons for discarding in this instance the cautious approach you say you have adopted to sister city relationships.

I note that there has been extensive consultation with relevant organisations. I would like to know the names of the organisations consulted and their response to the proposal.


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