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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 598 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

appropriated by the Federal Government for this project - not for us, but by the Federal Government to this project - $750,000 and no more. Surprise, surprise! Federal governments, and this one in particular, have been known to not quite deliver on what everybody expected to be their word. As my colleague rightly pointed out, there were core promises and non-core promises.

Mr Humphries: Neither did the previous Government.

MS McRAE: We are talking about the current Government here and now. If we even look at some of the commitments to capital works that were not made in the previous budget, it will be quite clear that we have plenty to be worried about. The ACT does not have a definitive, black-and-white, absolute statement of how much money is going to be allocated beyond the $750,000.

To come to the other part of the amendment, I am not anxious at all to support Ms Tucker's motion in terms of the full details of the proposed formal contract between the Commonwealth and the ACT. That is a formal contract between the ACT Government - not the Assembly - and the Federal Government. I do not know anything about formal contracts. I do not have the legal training. I do not undertake even to begin to venture into that territory. It is something that the Government will have to do, live by and defend. So, I am not interested in our reviewing all of that. We have had plenty of reviews, through the P and E Committee, through debate, through public discussion and through the process as has been exposed thus far.

My main sticking point with the process thus far is purely and simply exactly the argument that Mrs Carnell was mounting. The Federal Government is likely to blink. There are departments who are anxious to not let this happen. I do not for one minute think that the activities of the Assembly are going to be strengthening their hand; rather, the opposite. If we are saying, "We need this commitment", then it is up to Mr Howard to go to his departments and say, "For heaven's sake; this is a project worth backing. We will make this commitment here and now".

It is a test of your authority, Mrs Carnell, and his. You have been given this promise, but it is not on paper. We do not want to be disappointed. We do not believe that there is a commitment beyond the $750,000. Until we see a definite budgetary commitment which goes beyond this initial allocation, we will be very wary. Whether or not the building has been half-gutted is neither here nor there. It can obviously be put to some form of reuse. It is not the debate, anyway. It is not the point.

The point of this, purely and simply, is the reverse of what you are arguing, Mrs Carnell. This Assembly is, in fact, strengthening your hand by saying, "We do not trust the Federal Government. Mr Howard, come clean with exactly what you are doing. If you are genuinely behind this project, make known here and now - do not even wait for 13 May - how much is going to be allocated beyond the $750,000, in how many lots, over a two-, three- or five-year project, and what the next stage of the plan is".

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