Page 1374 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I, too, am always afraid about debate where the result might affect my personal position and where at the end of the day it might result in some very dramatic change which I cannot predict. That is certainly a matter for great concern in any debate, irrespective of what area of life we might be talking about. But I do not believe that that is ever a good argument for saying, "It is an issue that concerns people, it actually has people in this community which we serve concerned and agitated, but we should not go down that path and explore that debate". Of course we must. The Canberra Times this morning did not call Mrs Carnell a goose. It certainly made some comments that were not flattering, but it also said, and this is the important point about this comment:
This is not to say that the style of ACT Government should be set in stone. There is always scope for improvement.
That is the issue that I think Mrs Carnell and my party have raised properly in the last few days - improvement in the nature of self-government. Those opposite are afraid of some of those options, and I might say that I do not much embrace some of the options either. But the point is that we cannot have a debate without looking at all the options. You cannot say to people, "Yes, we can debate self-government; but, no, we cannot debate options A, B, C or D". That is just not possible. We do have to have this debate. This is a debate that the people of the ACT have wanted for some time, and it is a debate that we in this party have finally acknowledged, perhaps a little belatedly, ought to take place.
There are lies, damned lies and selective quotations. Let me quote more extensively from the transcript of Mrs Carnell's comments on the Matthew Abraham program yesterday on the ABC. It was quoted by Mr Connolly but, I am afraid, not very accurately. Mrs Carnell said, referring to a city-style council:
If the people of Canberra really want that, then the Liberal Party will undertake to see how we can implement that under the current federal legislation. Or, possibly, see if we can get the federal legislation changed, if that's what it takes.
Mr Abraham then said:
... you'd create ... a Liberal Party policy, going to the next election supporting a city council style of government, or administration in the ACT?
Mrs Carnell answered:
Simply put, yes.
It was predicated on that phrase of what the people of Canberra really wanted. It would be equally true to say that, if it had been put to her, "If the people of Canberra wanted the present arrangements to be in place without any change you would go to the next ACT election with that as your policy?", she would equally have said, "Simply put, yes". The hallmark of this approach, a hallmark we have not seen in this chamber for some time, a hallmark we have not seen from this Government for some time, is to say, "We will listen to what the people of Canberra want; we will consult and we will take notice" - not the sham
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .