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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 151 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

Mr Stanhope, as I said, raised the question rhetorically. It is a good question. I would like to know why the Prime Minister did it too. But condemning him is not going to get the answer. To ask him might get the answer. That will be the thrust of the amendment that I am circulating. It may just be that the Prime Minister has become heartily sick of being bagged by people in this town. I must admit, sadly, there have been times when the Chief Minister has been part of that bagging process. Mr Stanhope was part of it today. Maybe the Prime Minister just felt that he was not welcome here - I do not know.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the Prime Minister to explain to the people of Canberra why he made the decision that he did and to put forward the reasons that justify his decision. If he does that, the people of Canberra may well be prepared to accept them. I might be prepared to accept them. Even Mr Stanhope might be prepared to accept them. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask him rather than condemn him.

The amendment proposed by the Chief Minister flows on from my amendment. The net effect will be that we ask the Prime Minister to explain to us and to the people of Canberra why he made the decision he did and then be more positive than that and go on and deal with the matters that the Chief Minister has put. With that amendment, the motion becomes a motion that I can support. Without that amendment, it is a motion that I would not support.

MR QUINLAN (11.14): John Howard as Prime Minister has shown himself as willing as any of his predecessors to play politics. I suppose we should not have been surprised that the promise of CHOGM coincided with the last ACT election and now has been withdrawn or reneged upon. I hear Mr Kaine's pleas on behalf of Mr Howard. He regards as vilification terms such as Honest John and Kirribilli John, when in fact the man has proven himself to be an exemplary family man. Ask his brother Stanley. The Prime Minister spared no effort in sparing his media adviser to shepherd his son through recent trauma before the courts, and he has given his family a more than adequate roof over their head at Kirribilli, albeit with a $2m refurbishment under the management of Mrs Howard.

I think we can now reasonably conclude that John Howard never intended that CHOGM should come to Canberra and that, consistent with the politics of the process, announced its withdrawal on 31 December 1999, the day before the new millennium celebrations, which would hopefully subsume the announcement in other news and celebrations.

The concern I have is this: If Mr Howard is prepared to delude Canberra on CHOGM what else is he prepared to delude Canberra on? Even though some money has been spent, how genuine is John Howard in relation to the VFT? Is that just another one of those build-ups, another example of hope-of-tomorrow politics?

People before me have said that Canberra business is now railing against the decision - and why wouldn't they? - and are seeking compensation. There is an intriguing situation here. On about 14 January a spokesman for Mrs Carnell said that the Prime Minister was receptive to the idea of compensation and that they had discussed other matters. Given that this announcement was made on 31 December and the two people involved

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