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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 161 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

the reason that I took CHOGM from the ACT. I explained that to you in our negotiations, Chief Minister; do you not remember?". I am not quite sure what Mr Kaine hopes to expect, other than a letter back from the Prime Minister saying, "I have already negotiated on this matter with the Chief Minister. She can tell you what I told her".

In terms of the almost puerile point the Chief Minister makes that this debate has descended to petty politics and personal comments, it has not at all. We have a Prime Minister who, quite obviously, hates Canberra. I think you could put it as extremely as that. The Prime Minister- - -

Ms Carnell: Comments about the Prime Minister's brother and that sort of stuff are not petty politics?

MR STANHOPE: When did I mention the Prime Minister's brother? The Prime Minister's brother has nothing to do with this.

MR SPEAKER: No, it has not; that is true.

Ms Carnell: Your deputy did and you are both on the same side.

MR STANHOPE: There was absolutely no reference to that. The politics of this matter and the politics that have not been explained are the reason for the decision - - -

Mr Humphries: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is misleading the chamber, Mr Speaker. We will have a Hansard to look at. Do you remember the reference to "family man", Jon?

MR STANHOPE: Was that how you construed that? Is the Liberal Party feeling a little tender? Is the Liberal Party feeling a little sensitive?

MR SPEAKER: Order! Come back to the subject of the debate, please.

MR STANHOPE: You must be feeling very tender. I do reject the suggestion that we should not investigate the basis on which this decision was made. We are all talking about ensuring that this sort of thing never happens again. In order to ensure that something like this does not happen again, one of things you must do is seek to understand how it happened in the first place. It is the same with everything in life. If you do not understand the basis, you cannot ensure that it will not happen again. We do need to investigate how the decision was made. What was the basis on which the decision to hold CHOGM here was made? Why, 18 months ago, was Canberra capable of hosting CHOGM when today it is deemed to be not capable? What was the decision-making process that led to both of those decisions, the initial decision to hold it here and the second decision to take it away?

There is a need for the Prime Minister and those decision makers who took it away to be accountable for the damage that they have done to Canberra. For this Assembly to walk away from condemnation of the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth for what they have done to Canberra leads one to the only conclusion that one can draw from this, that

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