Page 1371 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I happen to believe in what we have now. As Mr Wood said, I was put through the griller in 1986 because I believed in what we have now. This is not the first time I have said what I think ought to be the case. I think what we have is pretty good. If the community does not agree with that, then we have a problem. It is not only the Opposition that has a problem; the Government has a problem, because they have to listen too. I am open to change. Most of you will know that four years ago, when we first came together, I was advocating a different form of government from what we have now. I was advocating a collegiate form of government where all 17 of us would be involved in the process of decision making and government, rather than only half of us. That, however, was rejected by most of the people involved. We did not achieve it. But for anybody to say that I am bound to one particular form of government and am not prepared to consider another is wrong.
I come back to the point that, if we seek public opinion and the public says, "We want a change", that decision had better be made in the light of their being fully informed. They have to understand the ramifications of it and what the net consequences are for those very people who might, at a superficial look, decide that they need something different. For all of those reasons, there has to be a long public information program; there has to be a long program of community consultation. We may well end up with a city council. If at the end of the day we do, I will accept that, but in the meantime, right here and now, because that community consultation process has not taken place, I, for one, cannot support Mr Stevenson's motion. I refute the allegation people have tried to stir up that there are major differences of opinion between me and my leader on this issue. It simply is not so.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.59):
Compere: Were you surprised to see Ms Carnell talking about it in the way she did?
Trevor Kaine: Quite frankly, yes, I was, because I almost felt that she'd been to a different summit than I'd been to.
However, as Mr Kaine just told us, it is terrible to see that there are attempts to suggest that he has a different view from Mrs Carnell. I cannot imagine where people would get that impression!
Mr Deputy Speaker, the poor old Liberal Party really have a problem. They sat down a few weeks ago, they had their little coup, they installed Mrs Carnell, and they headed off on this campaign of populism: "We are all things to all people. We want to spend more, we want to tax less. Anything you want we will give you". They have been caught out on the second sitting day - in fact, on the first sitting day, because the silly remarks that have caused Mrs Carnell all these problems were uttered yesterday and Mr Kaine's response was uttered in this place last night.
The Canberra Times ran an editorial on this, which must be something of a record. Usually a new leader of a political party enjoys something of a honeymoon with the press. There is a period in which a new leader of a party is given some scope for error, but Mrs Carnell must have established a record as being
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .