Page 1221 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: The other union, the PSU, and the Council of P and C Associations. It has been discussed with the various principals groups. It has been discussed through the schools. We are going to these groups asking them for their priorities. Where do they see the key areas? We are being quite up front with them. We have said to them, "The budget situation is difficult. We have reductions every year and you can expect more of the same". We are talking to all these groups, asking them to express their view. While you are talking we are discussing with people how things should be done. Whom have you spoken to in the last few days about these sorts of things? When we make decisions about education those options will have been thoroughly explored with the education community.
Let us look at the other side, the revenue side. We do not just jump in and do things. For example, we have a comprehensive urban renewal program. The prime purpose of that is to look for the benefit to Canberra that can be derived from sensible planning. One of the offshoots of that - it is not the prime reason, might I say - is that there are sound economic reasons for us to do so. It is good financing for us to do so. If North Watson, for example, goes ahead - the processes are not complete, so I do not know whether it is going to go ahead or not - there is an economic benefit to the ACT. But we do not just turn around and say that we are going to do that without very extensive consultation, and, might I say, consultation well over and above that which is required in the relevant legislation.
We have initiated the beginnings, the discussions. We have started them in North Watson and in Duffy the other day. We are the ones who set up those early meetings. They are not required but we have done that. Because there is a potential benefit to us if these things proceed, we go out and we talk to the community because we accept also that there is an impact on the community, both Canberra-wide and within that local neighbourhood. We believe that, for the most part, that impact is entirely beneficial, both to Canberra and to the neighbourhood; but not everybody has quite that view. If you live in a street where there is some change you may be right in terms of your own position as a person in the area. But we go and talk to those people. We do get out there and consult.
I am more than offended by the nature of this debate that just talks about consultation. What I believe happened today was this: Searching around for an MPI, the Liberals said, "We must talk about the Grants Commission and budgets", and that is a very reasonable and sensible thing to be talking about. But because of the new, fuzzy, warm image, or whatever the term might be, you had to wrap it as not just the hard economic matter. You sat around your table, if that is the way you do it, or Mrs Carnell dictated what would happen, and you said, "We have to soften this. We have to make it sound nice and cuddly". So you added that bit about consultation that you did not really want to talk about - consultation with the community. Obviously it is going to be a continuing part of your rhetoric - the replacement for Kaine, the Carnell style. I think it is all hogwash. You do not mean a word of it. You are not serious about it. You have never demonstrated it. What is most significant for me today is that you have given Trevor Kaine a real kick in the pants. You have said, "You were wrong. All your term of leadership and the brief period under Mr Humphries has been a failure", because you have seen that you have not been consulting and now you have to start to do it. I do not think you are serious.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .