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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2493 ..

MS TUCKER (11.17): Mr Speaker, I will speak to the amendment and in the general debate as well. I have been concerned at how Mr Howard has presented his case for not necessarily staying in Canberra, citing family reasons as justification for that. Why I find that concerning is that, from my recollection, he has also said publicly that, with the changes to the public sector, the loss of jobs in the public sector and generally the difficulties in employment and unemployment in Australia, people must be prepared to move to find work. It is not appropriate, therefore, to say, "But I will not".

It is especially not appropriate that it is the Prime Minister saying this, because there is a very special significance about his work. He is the Prime Minister and this is the national capital. At a time when his Government is making radical changes to how government administration works and when he is continually asserting that he has great respect for the Public Service and for the nature of the Commonwealth Government's role in Australia, he should make it very clear that he does respect the role of the Federal Government, the role of the national capital, his particular role and the significance of it. It is very disappointing.

I support Mrs Littlewood's concerns about the emotional impact on the community. Something that I did not really understand clearly until I talked to members of the community further on this issue is that people do not like being bagged all the time. We really love Canberra. We think it is a beautiful place in which to live, and it is. I think sometimes that some of these Federal politicians have not got out of their cars and they do not actually know what a nice place it is in which to live. We are struggling in many ways in Canberra, and we do not need that bagging. We need to be getting positive messages. We certainly need support from our Prime Minister.

In essence, I support the motion. I concede that there is some disagreement in this place about how the words are used and whether it is the decision that is being deplored or the person who made the decision. I have no problem with saying that it is the decision. I do not like personal attacks. I try not to make them myself. I think it is quite reasonable that you deplore the decision rather than the person. That is quite consistent with how we try to work in the Greens. So, I accept Mr Moore's proposal that we should make this less personal. Therefore, I hope that we will see agreement from the Labor Party to change these words, because what we want is a unanimous motion from this place, which is obviously much stronger. I really hope that we do not see Labor just playing silly buggers again around words.

MR OSBORNE (11.20): To follow on from what Ms Tucker said, Mr Speaker, I have a sister who is married to somebody in the Navy. They have been married for about eight or nine years.

Mr Corbell: Has it been plain sailing?

MR OSBORNE: It has not been plain sailing. Mr Speaker, they have had to move five or six times. They have been down to Hobart and in Canberra for a couple of years. They moved a couple of times in Sydney. He has been out to sea. I think they are about to move again. But, Mr Speaker, when he took on that job, he knew full well that there would be times when he would have to move. The same applies to the Prime Minister.

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