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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2664 ..

Mr Humphries: That is the one, Chief Minister.

MS CARNELL: That is the one, yes. There he is, right there. Voters who gave him either their first or second preferences clearly knew when they did so that they were supporting a member of the Canberra Liberals team, not an Independent. For heaven's sake, Mr Kaine had been a Minister in the Liberal Government for 13 months leading up to the last election, so I do not believe there was one voter in Brindabella who was in any way confused - - -

Mr Berry: But - - -

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate will be continuing. Members may respond during the debate.

MS CARNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Osborne, who did stand as an Independent, received 8,273 first preference votes, more than double those of Mr Kaine. Based on this evidence, there is no doubt whatsoever that had Mr Kaine stood as an Independent in the last election he would not be sitting here today. Mr Kaine, for his own reasons, chose to resign from the Liberal Party and to move to the crossbenches. He did not do this prior to the election campaign. He did not do this during the election campaign. He did not do it even directly after the election campaign. He did this some time after Liberal preferences had already assured him of a seat in the Assembly. The reasons for Mr Kaine's resignation, I think, are totally irrelevant to this debate, as Mr Kaine has already said. What is relevant is the fact that he entered this Assembly as a member of the Liberal Party. Only subsequently did he resign from the Government. He was not forced to leave the party or the Government. He chose to leave. He had every right to do that. How now would taxpayers feel if I, as Chief Minister, were to allocate the same resources to Mr Kaine as to other Independents just because he and nobody else, not the voters, decided that he should move to the crossbenches? What if Mr Hird decided now that he would like more staffing resources? Mr Hird, as our only backbencher, is on just about every committee known to man. He has a workload significantly higher than that of Mr Kaine. If we were doing it on a non-discriminatory basis, maybe we should be giving Mr Hird significantly more money because he is working significantly harder simply because of the number of committees that he is required to be on. That is not the approach that has been taken.

What if members of the Labor Party were suddenly to call themselves Independent Labor members for the purpose of getting more for staff salaries? That is quite possible to do. On Mr Kaine's argument, if they want to be Independents today, that is fine. We will give them a bit more money. I do not think that is appropriate.

Should taxpayers fund Mr Kaine simply because he did a bit of a dummy spit and decided to move to the crossbenches? Should the taxpayer pick up the tab for that? I am not in any way arguing Mr Kaine's total right to do what he did. He does have a right to do so, but should the taxpayer pick up the tab for that? This side of the Assembly says no. The taxpayers should not pick up the tab. Quite clearly, Mr Kaine was elected as a member of the Liberal Party. That is the basis on which he entered this Assembly.

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