Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 662 ..

The issues, in broad terms, Mr Speaker, are pretty clear. We have to get the cost of government down. We cannot afford what we have inherited after 4½ years of Labor government. If we cannot afford it, that means that in developing the budget for next year the Government is obligated to look at other ways of doing things. Yet every time the Government comes forward with any proposal that would perhaps lead to changes in the way things are done, somebody pops up and says, “We are going to put up a motion that says that you cannot do that”. Whilst this is essentially a debate about Namadgi, we are getting into a debate about what is the responsibility of the Executive and where the authority of the Executive ends. We are into a debate about trying to circumscribe what the Executive can do in doing things better. Mr Speaker, we need to reflect on whether it is appropriate for this Assembly, by the kind of motion that Mr Berry has foreshadowed and the other two that I referred to, to circumscribe everything that the Government attempts to do to make things better, to do things better, to do things at less cost.

Reverting specifically to the matter of public importance before us, which is a subset, I submit, of what I have been talking about, it is appropriate that, as I said before, we re-examine - along with the health system, the education system, the public transport system and the law and order system - how we manage our public assets. Namadgi National Park is a particularly sensitive one. It is not an asset that we can consume; it is not an asset that we can set aside recklessly; it is an asset that has been established in our time for the advantage of future generations of Australians. In terms of what we do with this particular asset, we have a rather different responsibility from that for other assets that we might safely dispose of or deal with in some other fashion.

Mr Speaker, this Government has no intention of divesting itself or the community of this public asset. When you see this sort of matter of public importance being put forward, you can only draw the conclusion that the Labor Party thinks that the Liberal Government of the Territory is going to do away with the asset. That is an absurdity. This Government does not intend to do that, any more than the previous Labor Government intended to do that. But it is appropriate, Mr Speaker, that the Government examine the way the asset is managed, to see whether there is some more effective way of doing it, some more efficient way of doing it, that may even lead to enhancing the value of that asset, at less cost. It never seems to have crossed the mind of the Opposition that this might be possible.

If you are not allowed even to look at possibilities, how do you know? How do Mr Berry, Mr Wood and Mr Connolly, if they have never looked at it, know that this asset cannot be managed better in the public interest, to enhance its value, to enhance its quality, to enhance the accessibility of the public to it, and perhaps all at less cost? If they are going to close their minds to looking at options, it might explain why only three months ago the people decided that they no longer wanted the dead hand of Labor on the government of this place. It is typical of their thinking. I think that is regrettable, Mr Speaker.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .