Page 1456 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 1 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: They are very simply met, Mr Kaine; very simply met. One would assume that it would not be very much trouble to take those steps, and those conditions did not have to be met before steps were taken.
Mr Kaine: Yes, they did.
MR WOOD: No, they did not.
Mr Kaine: It was a precondition.
MR WOOD: No. I remember the debate that we had.
Mr Collaery: There has been a shift to the right in the Labor Party.
MR WOOD: Well, that is a nice, evasive way out of your problem, Mr Collaery. The business community, the private sector, would like a message from this Government to say something is going to happen.
Take one example, the Canberra Times site. The private sector in this community is giving a D rating, on a scale of A to D, to this Government. Do you know what I heard last week? People do not call it the Alliance Government any more. They put that "D" in front of it and it is the "Dalliance" Government. That is what is going around this town - the "Dalliance" Government. It is a more appropriate name, might I say. Let me tell you what The Macquarie Dictionary says about "dalliance". It is "a trifling away of time".
Mr Kaine: Mr Speaker, there must be a point of order on relevance. We are talking about a budget statement.
MR WOOD: Mr Kaine, I am talking about what you say in this budget strategy document, and "dalliance" is the operative word. It also means "dawdling", Mr Duby. There is another meaning that is becoming more and more obvious here.
Mr Collaery: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; we are very generous to our colleague Mr Wood, but could we gravitate him towards the subject at issue?
MR SPEAKER: Thank you for your observation, Mr Collaery. Mr Wood, please stick to the point.
MR WOOD: There is a third meaning, and that is "flirtation, amorous toying". The trouble is, of course, that the love affair is starting to break up on that side of the house.
Let us be serious about this. What is to happen about section 19? Will the same problem arise? Will this go backwards and forwards from joint party to Cabinet, to party, backwards and forwards, around back to Cabinet again, back to the Law Office or somewhere else? What is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .