Page 235 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 12 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, in concluding I should like to note the very constructive atmosphere in which yesterday's meeting was conducted. Heads of government were prepared to work together to achieve progress in the national interest, rather than confining their outlook to the interests of their individual jurisdictions or levels of government. This provides a very positive indication of the further reforms we can achieve through intergovernmental cooperation. It also suggests that the new Council of Australian Governments will be an important and effective forum.
Madam Speaker, a detailed statement of the outcomes from yesterday's meeting is provided in the communique released at the conclusion of the meeting. For the information of members, I table the following papers:
Heads of Government Meeting -
Communique
Ministerial statement, 12 May 1992.
I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the ministerial statement.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.33): Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment:
Omit "takes note", substitute "rejects".
Madam Speaker, Ms Follett has failed in her duty to present the case adequately on behalf of the ACT community. She made it clear yesterday morning that she had no intention of upsetting her Federal mates, and in that objective she clearly succeeded admirably. She was nice to the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer and she came away with nothing for the people of the ACT. On that point, Madam Speaker, Ms Follett in her speech today has again misrepresented my comments concerning ACT finances. I did not say - - -
Ms Follett: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. If Mr Kaine thinks I have misrepresented something he should move a substantive motion or withdraw it.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, I quote from page 2 of the Chief Minister's speech. She said:
... there has been a misapprehension ... promoted by the Opposition Leader, that yesterday's meeting should have resolved the level of Commonwealth funding for the ACT.
I would seek that she withdraw that, because I have never said it. That is why I say that this is a misrepresentation. I have consistently referred to the removal of the vertical fiscal imbalance which has been on the agenda of the Special Premiers Conference since the very first meeting in December 1990. That is what the Special Premiers Conference was originally convened for. It is still on the agenda, presumably; and that is what she should have been there putting forward. You, like a lot of other people, were diverted onto a lot of other issues, none of which have been brought to fruition, despite your claims.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .