Page 4374 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Why do you not let me be the judge on that?
MR LAMONT: I would be concerned because I think I have a fairly good idea of what you would allow, and I think Mrs Carnell would take offence at that. That is one reason why I do not think that your colleagues would like to see you in charge of it, Foxy - Mr Kaine. It could rate up there with the one at Lyneham. It could be that we now have two Lynehams.
Mr Kaine: We are all going up to Lyneham at lunchtime to see what is on the wall.
MR LAMONT: That is very good. If that is the case and something about Moruya appears there, Mr Kaine, we will come to see whether you have some aerosol spray on your finger. Ms Szuty has raised a quite legitimate question in the motion. As I say, I have some doubt whether two hours should have been spent discussing it. I think it could have been resolved - - -
Mr Kaine: You have taken up 20 minutes.
MR LAMONT: I have done so because of the nonsense that has been raised by the Opposition. The only people who injected any sanity at all into the debate were Ms Szuty in her opening remarks and Mr Connolly in his response. I believe, however, that there is a reasonable - - -
Mr Stevenson: What about Mr Wood? Was that nonsense?
MR LAMONT: My concern is that Mr Wood always speaks forthrightly, and there was some suggestion that other people did not. That is why I did not mention Mr Wood. I am suggesting that there are avenues available to achieve the sentiment expressed by Ms Szuty without cost to the Government and without cost to the taxpayer.
Should community groups be able to coordinate this activity, we could also look at private buildings and private assets. I think that they should be included as part of a holistic approach to this issue. I do not think it is appropriate that it should be restricted to public buildings, public spaces and public assets. If we are serious about pursuing the issue, there are other avenues available to us that we could include. Quite frankly, I am aware of a number of businesses that would be interested in becoming involved in a program similar to the bus-shelters program.
To some extent the motion goes too far in relation to obligations on government for expenditure that it need not necessarily incur. Secondly, it excludes the private sector and private assets and therefore is not a holistic program. Thirdly, I find Mr Stevenson's thought police process reprehensible. I would suggest that his amendment is in direct contravention of the motion because it seeks to control a process that Ms Szuty is attempting to make more open.
Mr Connolly: Express yourself under these guidelines.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .