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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 3554 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The amendments which will be moved by my colleague seek to address the primacy of the United Nations in this process, the importance of there not being unilateral action by states-including the United States, Britain or Australia-without the support of the United Nations.

The Labor Party supports the amendment proposed by Ms Tucker. We believe it appropriate. With the amendments to be proposed by Mr Hargreaves and the amendment proposed by Ms Tucker, I believe there will be a strong motion which puts very clearly and succinctly this Assembly's view on behalf of this community that there should not be unilateral action against Iraq; that the United Nations should be supported to the full in its endeavours to seek a reasoned, peaceful outcome to the situation in Iraq; and that we all support the eventual aim of reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

These are important matters. There is an active national debate. It is appropriate that we express our support for the United Nations and that we express our support for a peaceful resolution to the situation confronting the world in relation to terrorism and Iraq's amassing of weapons of mass destruction.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, we have Ms Tucker's amendment to Ms Dundas' motion. If we settle that issue now, Mr Hargreaves can then move his amendments and we can continue the debate. If we do not move to Ms Tucker's amendment now, it means the debate can proceed for as long as we wish. We can debate Ms Tucker's amendment, and when that has been settled, we can move to Mr Hargreaves' amendments and debate them.

The question I have for the Assembly therefore is whether it the wish to resolve Ms Tucker's amendment now and move on to debate Mr Hargreaves' amendments.

Mr Stefaniak: Another simple way might be for Mr Hargreaves to move his amendments. This will enable speakers to make one speech in relation to all amendments.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would have done that, I must admit, but I am advised that we cannot do it. We must resolve Ms Tucker's amendment before we move to Mr Hargreaves' amendments. The Clerk has advised me that if you wish to address your remarks to Mr Hargreaves' foreshadowed amendments you may do that.

MR STEFANIAK (4.48): I will address the substantive motion first. The Liberal Party will be opposing the motion. Ms Dundas said that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime are no longer a threat. There has been a lot of rearmament. A lot of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction have been produced in recent times. Quite clearly the evidence is that Saddam Hussein is a threat. I do not think the United Nations would have issued such a strong resolution had that not been the case.

I was very concerned to hear Ms Tucker lump in with terrorists George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard. That is somewhat obscene. I do not think she meant to be too nasty, but it is very wrong to put those people in the same boat as people who viciously killed at least 59 Australians, together with 100 other people, in Bali or who have carried out other terrorist acts around the world.

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