Page 3722 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 18 October 2005

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


I do not approve of terrible things such as seeing the person shot in London. I think that was outrageous. There are consequences for those who have attempted to cover that. But we do have to take a position in this parliament of supporting the interests of our community and our community’s safety. Many people working in Canberra are in positions of sensitivity. They expect the commonwealth and territory governments to put party differences aside and work to protect the common good of this country at a time of threat. It staggers me that the ACT has put itself once again out in left field, is always seen out there in left field, with a position that appears to be negative towards the process employed.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

MR QUINLAN (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (11.13): I think that the first thing we need to do in this debate is to ask ourselves why this is an issue. Why is it an issue at all? Why is the federal government concerned that the potential legislation is promulgated in any manner? Why is there that concern at all?”

We have heard Mr Mulcahy talk about the security of the nation as if, as a function of what has happened, somehow the process of ensuring the security of the nation is jeopardised. That is arrant nonsense and really should not be even alluded to. We are talking about a process of advising the people of Australia as to what is being considered, legislation that we would not have even contemplated 10 or 15 years ago. All of us recognise that the world, the globe, faces a major problem in relation to terrorism; we know that. Mr Stanhope has indicated during the process that we agree that we have to make some unfortunate, distasteful compromises in order to address that problem.

But being secretive about what they are contemplating imposing upon us has not been explained. There is no rationale for keeping those matters secret, unless you happen to be part of a John Howard government which had just got into the groove of imposing on the Australian people, of having one day Senate inquiries in order to justify what it might be doing. There has not been explained in all of this, the lot opposite have not in any way advised this place, what problem has been caused.

We have seen from that side of the house on a regular basis a slavish acceptance of anything that comes from the federal Liberals. It is about time that that mob worked out whom they represent. Whom? It would seem nobody. Whom do you represent? Do you or do you not represent the people of the ACT? No, you represent in this place the views of the federal government. There does not seem to be any consideration or any discrimination involved in the thought that goes into it. There is a slavish following of the stricter legislation. I think that we can actually conclude that there are no small “l” liberals whatsoever in this house. We have a very right wing local Liberal Party slavishly following whatever comes down off the hill.

We have in the ACT a Liberal Party that from time to time, for convenience, tries to make issues out of public consultation. Here we have the potential for severely restrictive legislation to be imposed upon Australians and you do not want to consult about it. You like to consult ad nauseam about local planning issues, provided you can milk it for


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