Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan’s motion comes in two parts. The opposition completely agrees with the second part of his motion—that the House stands resolute against those who commit acts of terror and violence—as, I am sure, every member of this House does. We on this side of the House have given consistent support to this government’s antiterrorism legislation, although we have raised concerns about some provisions of these bills when we thought it appropriate. There is a bipartisan consensus in this parliament on the need to combat terrorism. The second part of the honourable member’s motion does no more than reflect that.

The first part of the honourable member for Ryan’s motion is a different matter. It appears that he does not know that his motion has been overtaken by events in Iraq and in the United States. There has been a mid-term election in the United States, Member for Ryan, which can only be seen as a repudiation by the American electorate of the American policy in Iraq. That verdict has been confirmed by the resignations of Secretary Rumsfeld, the architect of that policy, and by no less a person than Senator Warner, a Republican chairman of the joint foreign affairs committee over there—something you should get on board with.

See this speech in context