Questions submitted from the floor on the day: apologies again for the inequity of only being able to choose two from the long list of good questions here - even if we had devoted the whole evening to questions from the floor, sadly most of you would stiil have been disappointed.

You were invited to provide your own answers to these by e-mail and we invited the panellists to respond: the only reply we received was this holding reply from Kevin Rudd's office:

With the usual pressures of Parliament this week and the added pressure of the Budget, Kevin has been unable to address these questions.

As he has now left to attend a conference, it is unlikely he will have a chance to address the questions until his return on 24 May. I hope to have something ready for you in that time frame.

Kind regards,
Gina Tilley
PA to Kevin Rudd MP

War and Iraq

1. How can Australia help ensure that all nations are held to the same standards? Why for example do we not raise the issue of current US development of low-yield tactical battlefield nuclear weapons - are these not weapons of mass destruction?
2. Just suppose, your government decided to invade another country, with whom you had no argument, to drop cluster bombs and depleted uranium on them, to kill thousands of them, on the basis of a complete pack of lies, in flagrant contravention of international law, and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its people. What would you do to stop it? (Will Saunders)
3. Do you think that America could ship a few drums of chemical weapons to Iraq to be discovered?
4. Given that WMD was not the reason for war on Iraq, why do you think that Howard so keenly wanted to to go to war?
5. I belong to Medical Association for Prevention of War, and before the "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq I attended a lecture which had as its subject the real reasons behind the (let' s face it) US-invasion (not the excuses like WMD). Various things were put forward - oil, unfinished business on the part of George W Bush vis-a-vis Iraq, and so on. I remained inclear about why exactly the US did go to war. Was it simply to ensure control of oil? What do the speakers feel to be the main reason, as I feel we cannot progress and attempt to prevent further conflict unless we understand what's behind it?
6. How does the Liberal Party reconcile the belief in the sovereignty of the individual with the ongoing occupation of Iraq and its iniquitous imposition on Iraqi lives? Is sovereignty reserved for some races and not others? Marise's arguments seem to be couched in deeply eurocentric (racist) terms. (Tung-Yi Kho)
7. To Marise Payne: How can you claim a humanitarian element justifying the war when the "coalition of the willing" failed to come to the aid of the Kurds in 1987 when Saddam gassed them (while the US continued to support him) or of the Shi'ites in 1991 when they were against Saddam or when over 1 million Iraqis died, half of them childre, as a result of UN sanctions held in place by the votes of US and Britain and with the active support of Australia (1991-98)? For the Howard government to make this claim is sheer hypocrisy. (Bert Gray)
8. For Marise Payne: Bush and Blair always said they would go to war, UN or not. But John Howard said he would reserve his decision to join any US-led invasion until result of second UN resolution was known. There was no second resolution, because it stood no chance of success. So what possible outcome would have led to John Howard not joining a US-led invasion? And if no such outcome, is it not clear that John Howard lied to the Australian people about having already committed them to any invasion, UN-sanctioned or not? is it not clear he did this to avoid debate on the ethics of such an invasion? (Will Saunders)
9. To Marise Payne: Where is the equity in the Howard government's stated policy and basis for going to war - to rid an oppressed people of a tyrannical leader? Why are we not providing assistance to oppressed Zimbabweans?
10. To Marise Payne: You said that we need to support the agencies charged with looking after certain areas (or not, to that effect). Do you think that going to war in Iraq without a Security Council resolution helps the UN's permanent body? (Tony Simpson, International Commission of Jurists)

Terrorism

1. Given that terrorism is fuelled by hatred of American foreign policy and hatred of Americans because of their foreign policy impact on the countries these terrorists come from, how is it in the interest of Australia's citizens that we be aligned with America? Are we not inviting terrorist acts against our citizens by inviting the hatred of terrorists and the countries they come from? (Susy Benson)
2. As ambiguous as the concept of terrorism is, the use of the term "terror" is even worse. It is more disingenuous, designed more to obfuscate and muddle the issue and to promote fear, not rational action. Please refrain from it?

Relations with America

1. Please comment on the recent statement by the respected defence analyst Mr Dibb to the effect that unless Australia can re-establih its capability to stand independently on foreign policy issues and actions from the USA, Australia will do significant and long-term damage to its hard-won international credibility? (John Coffey)
2. American meddling. Big Time. When will it stop? They created puppets, puppet rulers. Then those puppets got way too powerful in emulation. When will the meddling stop? So our world can begin mending??

Politics and accountability

1. How can any Australian government presume to instruct other governments on human rights or the cause of terrorism when they have failed patently to address structural disadvantage of our indigenous peoples, the gross racism they are subject to, the racism Muslims and Arab people are subject to, and continue to lock up asylum seekers in indefinite detention? (Anne Picot)
   Transcript of debate in forum
2. What structures can we put in place to improve truth and accountability in our politicians?
3. Should politicians' first allegiance be to their electors or their party? (Steve Richardson)
4. It has been noted that the government has manipulated the public service with respect to the information it provides. What is the chance of reforming the public service into a more independent, less politicised public service?
5. To Marise Payne: How can your government be seen as credible or trustworthy, when clearly it has lied and sought to distort the truth on so many occasions - eg children overboard, WMD, the attack on the Federal Police Chief and civil servants, the selective use of defence reports, etc, etc? Where is the government's integrity in all of this? (Nina Burridge)

Intelligence services

1. Should the allegations of Andrew Wilkie, Ms Errey and Col Lance Collins be examined in the interest of Australia’s national security? Isn’t a Royal Commission which examines the veracity of the claims of the whistleblowers the only way of establishing the truth of their claims? (Mervyn Murchie) Transcript of debate in forum
2. What is Labor's position on a Royal Commission into Australia's intelligence service and its attitude to the Jakarta lobby?

Timor Oil

1. Why has Labor's voice been silent over the conflict of the Timor Oil question?
2. You have been referring to the crises our neighbours face - what then is the Labor Party's stand on the Timor Oil boundaries, keeping in mind Timor is Asia's poorest neighbour and our government is stealing its future? (Chris Nobel)

Falun Gong

1. In the context of "decisions behind closed doors", could the panel please comment on certificates issued by Foreign Minister Downer under DPI regul ations which prevent the holding of any banners (at the appeal for Falun Gong practitioners tortured in China) at the Chinese Embassy in Canberra? This is an executive decision affecting freedom of expression in Australia. It is not considered by Parliament, but only by the Foreign Minister. (John Deller)
2. What of state terrorism and genocide? There is a hidden case of persecution and genocide taking place which is the largst case of persecution happening in the world today. The persecution of tens of millions of people in China whose simple wish and only request is to be able to practice 5 peaceful Falun Gong exercises and to cultivate their inner selves according to the three principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. These three words are not a slogan but principles that are lived by and embodied by Falun Gong practitioners. the evidence of this is for example that there is not one reported case of even one practitioner retaliating against their tormentor even after the most cruelest of torture, rape and continuous beatings. The genocide and continuing atrocities against Falun Gong practitioners has been recognided and acknowledged by all respected human righst organisations and by the Australian MPs and Senators. The policy of continuing behind closed doors bilateral talks with China has simply been a failure, as the number of people being reported tortured to death is continuing to escalate and the official policy of "eradicating Falun Gong" is still continuing. What will we do to change this other than the failed policy of behind closed doors discussions? (Chris Cominos)

Other

1. Other areas of government spending are being grossly neglected whilst the Federal Liberal government directs our tax revenue to military hardware contracts with the United States. Is there anyone here who can save Kur-ring-gai campus? (Alanna Hardman)

© NSPD 2004. Last modified 16/01/05.