Page 1378 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell, not only have you reduced the currency of the position of the Leader of the Opposition; you have also played into the hands of the one person in this Assembly whose view it is - and I acknowledge that it is his consistent view - to abolish all forms of self-government.
Mr Stevenson: Nonsense!
MR LAMONT: Dennis, you have also expressed a desire to see other managerial arrangements put into place, but I would suggest to you that they are not forms of self-government.
I say quite clearly, Mrs Carnell, that what you have proposed in public, what you are now trying to back away from, you should regard as your first and only free lesson from this Assembly. Your political naivety and inexperience will be not be able to be used as an excuse in the future. What you should do is check the intent and the importance of the words you are going to use and the types of policies you wish to put forward. I believe that you have got off pretty lightly. One thing I am pleased to see is that the discipline you have exerted in your party room today has worked to a marked degree this afternoon in this debate. I believe that it was important to bring it on. I certainly hope that you are able to continue that discipline, Mrs Carnell, although I somehow doubt it.
If you are genuinely concerned about parliamentary reform in the ACT, I suggest that your second lesson for the day should be that you approach the other representative groups in this chamber to ascertain, if there is to be a concerted push to review our processes, whether or not there can be a unified Assembly position. That is not one of the things you have done. I suggest that you do not have the experience to be able to do that. That is an approach that has seen, as an example, the successful operation of the committee structure. Procedural matters are dealt with by discussion amongst the members of this Assembly after representations from members of the public or because of cross-party discussions. That is what Mr Kaine has been able to do - and I note the return of Mr Kaine. Mr Kaine, did you leave early on Sunday?
Mr Kaine: No.
MR LAMONT: I am sorry; did you say that no, you did not leave early on Sunday? On the one hand, you were unaware of the shire council proposal because you left early; but you did not leave early. I am not too sure, Mr Kaine, whether you are suggesting that on the one hand you were aware - - -
Mr Kaine: Maybe I was at a different summit.
MR LAMONT: Here are the two propositions, Mr Kaine: Either what has been said by Mrs Carnell this afternoon - that you had left early and were unaware of this matter - is an attempt to mislead this Assembly and is wrong, for which Mrs Carnell should at least apologise; or you did leave early, despite your assurances just now that you did not. If that is the case and you did leave early, I believe that you should apologise for misleading this Assembly. You can take your pick in the party room tomorrow. Either one of you can come back into this Assembly and apologise, and we would be happy to accept from either of you a statement that today you misled the Assembly. You can make that decision, Mr Kaine. You can apologise now or Mrs Carnell can apologise tomorrow. You take your pick.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .