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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 599 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

There have been many projects that have begun purely as a feasibility study and then stopped, for all sorts of spurious reasons. It is for that reason that we are wanting a definitive budgetary commitment from the Federal Government which makes us all feel secure that we are not just engaging in some demolition process which will end up with a rubble-laden site, with no future use for the people of the ACT.

Mrs Carnell: It cannot be used as it is now, though.

MS McRAE: I accept that, Mrs Carnell. Mrs Carnell interjects that we cannot use the building now. The point is: It is still there. If we are left in the lurch and doublecrossed, if this money does not come forward, we will deal with that problem on that day. For the moment, the immediate problem, the intent of my amendment and the intent, as I see it, of the motion is to get a definitive budgetary statement here and now and put Mr Howard onto his bureaucrats that are not cooperating. We understand about all those internecine battles. They are not unfamiliar. But the public deserves a commitment, and we do not want to wake up on budget day and, hey presto, discover nothing. That is the intent of my amendment and that is the intent of our support for this motion.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.16): Mr Speaker, I will speak to Ms McRae's amendment and to the substantive motion. I can certainly understand what this motion is getting at. Let me say on behalf of the Liberal Party that Ms McRae's amendment would certainly be supported by us; but I would still argue that the motion, as amended, ought not to be supported. What the motion, as amended, would say is that we have to wait until 15 May before we commit ourselves to any further commitment on the Acton site. I would be in favour of some brinkmanship on this issue. I think it would be good to be able to put the Federal Government under pressure because - I will make no secret of this fact in this place - I do not believe that the Federal Government is absolutely and irrevocably committed to the National Museum. I know that that is not what the Chief Minister said, but I will say in this place that I do not think - - -

Mr Whitecross: Mr Howard is notoriously selective with his promises, too.

MR HUMPHRIES: You might think that it is funny to exploit differences of view in the Liberal Party, Mr Whitecross. I am telling you how I see it. I am speaking honestly to the Assembly about what I think the situation is at the moment. The fact of the matter is that all the information I have at my disposal suggests that in the Federal Government there is a very fine balance between those who think the National Museum is something that ought to go ahead because it was promised at the last election and because it would be nice to have something for the Centenary of Federation and for a few other reasons - - -

Mr Moore: There are those who think it is a core promise and those who think it is not a core promise.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. Mr Moore, I want to make a point here. We in this Government here have been more prepared to condemn our Federal colleagues than ever that lot opposite were in respect of the previous Federal Government. You never saw them vote against or even utter words of condemnation of their Federal colleagues,

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