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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 150 ..

MR KAINE (11.08): That is fine, Mr Speaker. I will foreshadow it. I do not support this motion. I think that for this place to condemn the Prime Minister of Australia is a very serious matter. Even though some people feel affronted by the Prime Minister's decision, I think the motion goes too far. I do not think we have sufficient justification for condemning the Prime Minister in this case. I think we are being a little bit precious, even to the point of taking personal affront, about the Heads of Government Meeting taking place some place else.

My bottom line is that to pass this motion would simply put the Prime Minister further offside than he is now. If it is true, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, that the Prime Minister has some personal aversion to Canberra, passing a motion like this as an official act of this parliament is not going to make him feel any more benevolent towards Canberra in the future. If there is a problem, then we should be doing something to fix the problem between us and the Prime Minister rather than aggravating the problem.

I will not support a motion that condemns the Prime Minister. I foreshadow an amendment that will change the wording considerably and that might, as the Chief Minister is attempting to do with her amendment, get a more positive response from the Prime Minister than would a motion condemning him.

The Chief Minister made the point that she has often been critical of the Prime Minister and the Federal Government. That is true. But being critical and condemning are two vastly different things. I do not mind supporting the Leader of the Opposition or the Chief Minister if once in a while they are critical of the Federal Parliament and the Prime Minister, and even Mr Beazley, when they ignore the interests of the 300,000-odd people who live in Canberra. I think it is appropriate that we should be critical when something like that occurs. As I say, to be critical of them when they do the wrong thing, say the wrong thing or, in our opinion, take the wrong attitude is a vastly different thing to condemning them.

Mr Stanhope's motion, sadly, is based more on politics than anything else. His references to the Lodge being good enough for previous Prime Ministers and being good enough for Mr Beazley - maybe, if Mr Beazley ever gets there - did little to strengthen his argument. His personal attacks on the Prime Minister, referring to him as Kirribilli John and Honest John in a deprecatory fashion, put me off rather than put me on side. I do not think that there is room for that sort of debate in this place, particularly when we should be attempting to mend any fences that need mending.

I do not know why the Prime Minister decided to take CHOGM elsewhere. Mr Stanhope raised the question rhetorically. But he did not answer it, so I can only assume that he has made no attempt whatsoever to find out why the Prime Minister decided to take CHOGM some place else. The Prime Minister may have had perfectly legitimate reasons. He has not yet chosen to tell us what they are, but my proposed amendment to this motion will ask him, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

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