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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 147 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

A number of recommendations are made in the submission I referred to from Canberra business to the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister that they believe as a result of his reckless and outrageous behaviour need to be addressed. He needs to address each of those matters that he has now so starkly questioned in relation to our capacity to act as the national capital and our capacity to act as a conference and convention centre for Canberra, for the region, for Australia and for the Pacific region.

The Commonwealth needs to accept a role in ensuring that the Canberra international airport is able to cater for the needs of the Australian Government and international entourages. The Commonwealth needs to accept that if Canberra is to enjoy its role as the national capital then it has a responsibility to ensure that we do have the capacity and the facilities to mount major international conferences; that we do have appropriate accommodation; that the infrastructure in the ACT is befitting of us as the national capital. We need the Commonwealth to accept its full responsibility in ensuring that Canberra has the status of Australia's national capital in the eyes of this nation and all other nations. The Prime Minister and the Commonwealth need to ensure that the people of Australia have the pride in their national capital that we would all here hope that they do.

The Prime Minister's actions are so outrageous, so negative, so damaging and so despicable that I believe that this place has no option but to support the motion of condemnation that I move today. I commend the motion to all members.

MS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (10.57): This is an interesting way to use private members time when I assume everyone in this place supports the approach. We have all been out there, and not just in the media, attempting first of all to reverse the Prime Minister's decision and then attempting to find a positive way forward - or at least some of us have. Maybe that shows the fundamental difference between Mr Stanhope and me and between the Labor Party and the Government. Mr Humphries and I roundly condemned the Prime Minister for his approach in this area. Yes, the Prime Minister is from the same side of politics as we are, but that does not mean we are not willing, where appropriate, to be very critical.

It is very hard to see the same thing happening with those opposite. This side of the house will always support Canberra as our primary reason for being, and we are more than happy to condemn the Federal Government for doing something that is not positive for Canberra. I doubt whether those opposite would ever do that.

Mr Corbell: Just wait for it, Chief Minister.

MS CARNELL: I will be pleased when I hear those opposite, maybe a little bit later this morning when we consider the regional forest agreements, condemn Bob Carr roundly. We wait with bated breath. Canberra is our reason for being and our commitment. The approach the Federal Government took was unacceptable. Both Mr Humphries and I worked very hard to convince the Prime Minister to change his mind. By the time we were told that CHOGM would be relocated to Brisbane, the decision had very definitely been taken.

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