Page 133 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.13): I would like to speak to Mr Berry's amendment. I have already spoken at length on Mr Moore's original proposal and I indicated that I would not support it. I also indicated that I would not support what the Government was talking about putting forward as its amendment. My reasons for opposing Mr Moore's motion have not changed, and essentially Mr Humphries has amplified them.
There are two sides to the coin. One is that it is not appropriate to say that the peninsula may be used only for these purposes when a public consultation process has been going on for two years. I know that this Government is pretty good at cutting off community consultation in the middle. It did it on the Territory Plan and it is trying to do it again on this issue. I suggest that they let the community consultation process run its course before they start making decisions about what this is going to be used for. It is not appropriate to truncate that process. It is not appropriate to constrain this site only for the purposes Mr Moore describes. The converse is that this is not an appropriate site, as Mr Humphries has explained, for some of the facilities Mr Moore is proposing, particularly the hospice.
That being said, what we have now is that the Government does not want to be committed to this motion either, so they have to get themselves off the hook. It is part of their policy but they do not want to support it. What do we get? We get Mr Berry coming up with a two-bob-each-way approach: "Although it is our policy, we are not going to support Mr Moore, but we are going to note the Labor Party's priority". What the hell does that mean? Either the Labor Party is committed to doing something or it is not. This is yet another case of a Labor Party policy they are trying to escape, to avoid. I am surprised that they are not pulling the old stunt of saying, "Well, it is in our policy, but it is not really a priority right now", and then in three weeks' time coming out with a Bill to put it into effect. We can note a couple of cases of that.
What do Mr Berry and the Government mean by this amendment that the Assembly notes the Labor Party's priority for the next three years? I do not know what the Labor Party's priority for the next three years is on this issue, except to avoid having to make a decision about it.
Mr Lamont: Read the resolution.
MR KAINE: I have read the resolution. You tell me what is the Labor Party's priority for the next three years in connection with putting the Queen Elizabeth II home for nursing mothers and babies on this site? Can you tell me what it is? I do not know what it is, and I do not believe that anybody out in the community does either. You do not have a policy on that matter and you do not have a priority for the next three years either, except to do nothing, which is what you do about most issues. You talk about it, but you do not do anything.
So this is Mr Berry and the Government trying to have two-bob each way, trying to avoid the issues Mr Moore has raised, but at the same time trying to give the community some perception that they actually have a plan in mind. They do not have a plan in mind. If they did, they would have put forward an amendment to Mr Moore's motion that was far more specific about what they intend to do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .