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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4913 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

This Assembly is unique in another way too. To my knowledge, it is the only parliament in Australia, perhaps the only parliament anywhere, where nearly a quarter of the members elected at the first election did not want self-government and were pledged to overthrow it. We had three members of the No Self Government Party and one member of the Abolish Self Government Coalition. That was a reflection of the substantial opposition to self-government in the ACT. It was recognised then that a very large proportion of the ACT population did not want self-government. They had been mollycoddled for so long that that was perhaps an understandable view, and perhaps the concept was not well sold to them.

That opposition has diminished. Let us call it a reserve now. That reserve about self-government remains a fact of life in the ACT. A substantial number of voters are still not convinced about self-government. That is good reason for us to look at it and see how we can improve it. Politicians and parties are well aware of that residual reserve about self-government. Do not forget those four members in the First Assembly and one in the Second Assembly. In the election campaign three years ago attempts were made to exploit that reserve. Three years ago the Chief Minister, on behalf of the Liberals, ran the line that we needed a council-style government. Why that line? I have no doubt that the Liberals' polling showed that reserve about self-government. Three years ago we had a stunt very like the stunt that we are debating today. The Liberals were all about council-style government. I have not seen anything come of it. The Liberals formed the Government. I have not seen any firm proposals here about council-style government. We have a repeat performance now. Mr Osborne is in tune with those sentiments in the community and he too has been talking about council-style government or a different style of government. For the Liberals, it is election time again. They cannot run their council line once more. That would not hold with the community because it has been run before. Someone else may be able to run it but the Liberals cannot. What is the stunt on this occasion? It is a review of government, a joint review with Federal and Territory involvement.

What will come out of this review? I do not think anything will come out of it as it stands at the moment, because it is a stunt. It is not designed to produce anything other than a view in the community that might attract some votes. That is what it is about. That is what this debate today is about. If Mrs Carnell was serious about her intention to look objectively at this, she would have come to this Assembly in the first place. We would have had this debate three or four months ago. If the Liberals were serious, that is when we would have had this debate. The Chief Minister was kind enough to allow us, before any announcement, to comment on the terms of reference but not to comment on the process at all. It was designed as a stunt, like the debate we are having right now. If the Chief Minister was looking at anything more than a stunt, she would have given notice of this debate today. We would have known about it at least yesterday, or perhaps earlier in the week when the business program was being discussed. It was dropped on the Assembly at a moment's notice in order to run a line. That is the whole story. That sets it in context. The Chief Minister says, "This is something that I want to send out to the public to try to attract some votes".

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