Page 2344 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE: I do not know who Ms Ellis represents, but presumably Ros Kelly is one of her constituents. She claims to represent her. Anyway, Ms Ellis really revealed her vitriol right from the beginning when she said that we were fooled into supporting John Hewson. John Hewson did not even make a comment on this until August. My position was well and truly on the record, in a committee report, three months before. We were not fooled into supporting John Hewson. In fact, Ms Ellis misrepresents John Hewson's position as well. Madam Speaker, I will read from John Hewson's press report on the matter, which, of course, Ms Ellis would not want to know about. I quote John Hewson's media release of 24 August 1992:
We do not doubt that the current building in which the department is housed has health and occupational safety problems. These need to be remedied as soon as possible.
I will read on:
But what we do question is the way in which the Government proposes to fix the problem.
John Hewson is not even objecting to a building for DFAT. He is suggesting that what is being proposed is questionable in today's economic climate. So do not misrepresent John Hewson and do not misrepresent me.
To be more specific, Madam Speaker, not only did I put that recommendation in the Planning Committee's report. On 26 August this issue started to get some publicity. The members of the Government decided that it ought to be an issue and they ought to be kicking John Hewson to death. His media release is dated 24 August. Look what happened afterwards. Ros Kelly came out. I was asked by the media on a number of occasions, on 26 August, to make a comment. I quote from a transcript of interview with WIN Television, at 9.45 on 26 August. I was asked:
Mr Kaine, where do the ACT Liberals stand on a new DFAT building in York Park?
My answer was:
We stand firmly where we've always stood. We believe that the Commonwealth should be beginning projects of that kind - the development of York Park, the restoration and refurbishment of the old Parliament House, the construction of a Museum of Australia. They're projects that Australia needs and that the ACT needs.
Where is the opposition to this project inherent in that? I see that Ms Ellis has left. She does not want to hear this. A question further down was this:
... do you deny that Canberra doesn't need it?
My answer was:
Oh no, I think Canberra needs it. I think the public servants are entitled to reasonable accommodation. There is no doubt that the building that they're in needs refurbishment, but there is a question of standards.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .