Page 1867 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Having established a framework, it is then time to go to the community and say, "This is what we suggest might be the major areas. These may be major divisions. We want to set our priorities, talk to people within each of those areas and then get those groups together to try to set out where those priorities should be established". A major community consultation exercise is required by that sort of system. But at least under those circumstances you are starting to get the basis to manage the money so that it is subject to what the community wants, instead of telling the community what it is going to get because the money dictates it. That is what has been happening here, and that is why I am going to vote against this Supply Bill because I do not believe that this Government is capable of managing money.
Mr Humphries: Blocking supply?
MR MOORE: I do not believe you are going to manage the money. It is not difficult; I will just say no.
Mr Humphries: Who was that guy, Gough Whitlam? What did he say about blocking supply? I cannot recall what he said about it.
MR MOORE: You cannot recall what who said about it?
Mr Humphries: Gough Whitlam.
MR MOORE: Gough Whitlam is no friend of mine. That is the bit about which you seem to be sometimes mistaken, Mr Humphries. Of course, you would like to close me in with Labor. As I have said here, within a political sense I have no friends, and that is how I intend to remain. But I do have the opposite.
If we then move on to looking at what you are doing in education, I will take the opportunity to remind you that in your destruction of education this was not perceived as good money management by the community in general. I also attended those meetings that Mr Humphries attended. But the dissatisfaction of the community with Mr Humphries and his Government - not with him personally, but with his decisions and with his Government - was made clear at those meetings.
I should emphasise that there was not dissatisfaction with Mr Humphries personally. A large number of people have commented to me that, as far as they are concerned, by going to those meetings and presenting his point of view, he was "courageous". I think that is perhaps over the top. Nevertheless, the fact that he did go to those meetings and was prepared to answer questions, I think, is a great credit to him, and it is something that other members of his Government might learn to do when they are under pressure. It was a very different story when they were under pressure over the fact that Mr Duby should have resigned but did not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .