Page 3723 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
political gain, but when it comes to a serious matter like the anti-terrorism legislation that this country faces you are against consultation. I find it difficult to accept that you guys, here to represent the people of the ACT, will consistently echo the mutterings or the proposals that come from the federal government no matter what. While it is “my Liberal Party, right or wrong”, your contribution to these issues is absolutely zero.
What happened here was that the legislation was proposed. Mr Stanhope has already come out and said, “Look, on what I have been advised, we do need to impose a much stricter regime in Australia, unfortunately.” But he has also said, quite rightly, “We must also bring the people of Australia with us. As far as we can share the intelligence that obviously is being made available, we must bring the people of Australia with us and advise them of what is happening.” Your attitude is, “No, don’t. Minimise the amount of consultation, minimise the amount of information.”
On one hand, it has been claimed that this document was in a draft form and should not have been out there. On the other, the Prime Minister has written and asked our Chief Minister to sign up for it. Both of those propositions cannot stand. There is, quite clearly, a need to consult with people, with all of the people, to let people know exactly what has happened. We have had Mr Smyth and Mr Mulcahy saying in here that we have embarrassed the ACT.
Mrs Burke: Read the papers. We are a laughing stock.
MR QUINLAN: Read the public reaction. Leaving aside D. Kibbey of Curtin, the reaction, I am advised by the Chief Minister’s office in terms of the letters that have flowed in there, is overwhelmingly in favour of what has been done. Hundreds of letters have come in and only a handful has actually objected. We did have a bit of a giggle about some of the grammar and spelling used by those who objected.
It is nonsense to stand in this place and say, “Oh, I have been totally embarrassed standing around the carousel. Everybody is saying the ACT has embarrassed Australia.” Major journalists have written and said that it was the right thing to do. The local newspaper has written and said that it was the right thing to do. The volume of letters to the editor has said that it was the right thing to do. What does it take to convince the lot opposite that there is a need for public consultation or that, in fact, the judgment that Mr Stanhope has made has been absolutely the appropriate judgment to make, made within and beyond that forum?
Mr Mulcahy and I think Mr Smyth referred to ministerial councils. That is a league, thankfully, that I do not think you will ever participate in again. If Canberra citizens had to depend upon Mr Smyth going to ministerial councils and doing whatever the federal government wanted him to do—or Mr Mulcahy, one of the alternative leaders—and acquiescing in everything that the commonwealth wanted every time, they would not be represented. You are elected to represent the people of the ACT, not the federal government, in this place.
I repeat my original proposition: we need to ask ourselves why it is an issue at all? What is the problem with the public being informed?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .