Page 1375 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consultation we get from this Government, not "We will listen to you if it suits us, but if it doesn't we won't"; not "We want to hear what you have to say, but if you disagree with our preferred announced policy, particularly at the last election, you can go jump in the lake", and the Acton Peninsula is quite nearby. That is the approach you get from this Government. That is not the approach we are taking up in this party at this time.
Mr Kaine is quite right to say that the ACT does stand to lose under some of the options that might be canvassed and might be supported by some people in this debate. I, for one, agree that it would be most unfortunate if the ACT voted itself off ministerial councils because of the way in which change in self-government occurred, if any occurred at all as a result of this debate. But I, for one, believe that there are other options than simply saying that we change names and we lose our position on these councils. I do not believe that it is absolutely essential that every person who sits on one of these councils be called a Minister. It may well be possible to change the way in which we do business in this Territory and preserve our capacity to take part in these debates. I might quibble slightly also with Mr Wood's assertion that the ACT's vote is worth just as much as that of New South Wales. I would not like to be putting my position against New South Wales and expect to get listened to more than New South Wales does in one of those bodies, but that is a debate for another day.
We are right to be looking at protecting the sorts of things Mr Kaine referred to in his comments on the Matthew Abraham program this morning. We should not lose our role in those national bodies, but it does not mean that the debate ends there - we might lose that position, therefore we do not have any further debate; we might end up with some different structure, part time or full time; we might end up with some different role for particular Ministers, therefore we cannot have the debate. That is stupid. Nobody has suggested that.
It has been part of the tactic employed by the Government in this debate that they have deliberately thrown up ridiculous options, options that are designed to frighten and mislead, for the sake of pouring scorn on this proposal to have a debate. The idea that, because Sallyanne Atkinson was paid more than the Prime Minister, we should therefore reject the idea of looking at a new form of government in the ACT is about the weakest argument I have heard from Ms Follett for a long time. Goodness me! There are some very important considerations to be looking at in this debate, and we must embark on that debate. In my view, those opposite who say that we can afford not to do so know that they will be left behind.
The person who originated this debate today was Mr Stevenson, and I have some words to say about him in this debate. He says that he knows that the people of the ACT do not want what they have and he knows that what they want is a city council. First of all, let me say to Mr Stevenson that he sits in this place as the sole representative of the Abolish Self Government Coalition. He would have to concede that a city council is a form of self-government. If that is what he wants, is he really being true to the title with which he won so many votes at the last ACT election? I would suggest not. Mr Stevenson is in favour of self-government; he just wants a different form of self-government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .