Page 2350 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The article goes on to show where the relevance is, Madam Speaker. I quote:
Mr Kaine said he was "not at odds with the general thrust" of Dr Hewson's remarks.
What I think should come out of this debate is not the rhetoric, which it quite obviously is, that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have been going on with in relation to this project; they should stand up and wear the ignominy of having to change their position. They are now going to have to come out, Madam Speaker, and say quite clearly that what they said in the reports that we have referred to was wrong; that they do, in fact, support the total construction of York Park in terms of the DFAT building; that it is appropriate that the DFAT building go ahead, as evidenced, Madam Speaker, by their amendment.
It is quite clear that Mr Kaine and the Liberals are diametrically opposed to the position adopted by John Hewson. In fact, Madam Speaker, in view of these quotes attributable to Mr Kaine, Mr Kaine should have the temerity to go on the public record of the Canberra Times and have them withdraw them. What he said then is incorrect, or what he said now is incorrect - one of the two. Either he was incorrect then or he is incorrect now. He cannot have it both ways. Or, once again, as I said at the outset, it is the greatest turnaround that we have seen because they are trying to get out from under.
These people opposite took great pleasure in supporting John Hewson. Mr Kaine said, "Here is the bible. Here is the word according to Kaine. This is my vision for Canberra". It was the Fightback. It was the Fightback leaflet put out by his leader. That document talks about the decimation of the ACT economy. Not only does it talk about the relocation of government employees out of the ACT, not only does it talk about thousands of jobs being taken out of the ACT; it also talks about a complete undermining of areas such as the real estate industry. That is the natural conclusion that you must draw from what the Liberals have said.
Here, Madam Speaker, is the inconsistency. On the one hand we have statements made in the media, trying to convince the people of Canberra that they have nothing to worry about because, really, this package is going to be good for Canberra. They say, "We have a few little scruples that we think might interfere with the development at York Park. It should go ahead, we think. But we really support Dr Hewson and we are not too sure what we are going to do. We will have a committee meeting about it and we will change our mind". That has been the line that we have heard.
It is indicative at least of the flexibility of the Opposition that they had the audacity, if nothing else, to put forward an amendment that we will support. I think that it is an amendment that needs to be supported.
Mr Humphries: Bowing to the wind, eh?
MR LAMONT: Probably not the deletion of paragraph (3), but the manager of government business will handle that. It is very good, if nothing else, to see once again the flexibility of the Liberals. I am not quite sure that the people of Canberra will accept that. They certainly did not accept it six months ago, and they will not be accepting it in three years' time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .