Page 458 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
My amendment again calls on the Assembly to support a much broader process which looks at autonomy in all its forms. I think that the Chief Minister actually made the argument. He spent the second half of his speech making the argument in favour of my amendment. Deep down inside he knows this is the right way to go and that we should not take this narrow focus. You have got to ask why: why does he agree then? He made an eloquent argument in favour of my amendment.
Given he so passionately believes in my amendment, why is he not supporting it? Why is he supporting the motion in its current form? It is about the Greens’ tail wagging the Labor dog. That is what this is about. When Bob Brown says, “Jump,” Jon Stanhope says, “How high?” We have seen it again today. When Meredith Hunter says, “Jump,” Jon Stanhope says, “How high?” It is the Greens’ tail wagging the Labor dog—and a dog it is. It is a dog of a government. That is why they do not want to be talking. In fact, you could ask, Mr Speaker, why they want to talk about this. Could it have anything to do with the fact that they have no agenda and we would have been finished by about 10.30 if it were not for this rushed motion?
Dealing with the substance of the motion and my amendment, what we have is a government that does not want to talk about its own agenda. It does not want to talk about its own performance. The last thing it would want to do in this place is talk about health, public transport, planning, housing affordability and fiscal responsibility. It would not want to talk about those.
Members interjecting—
MR SESELJA: But let us deal with the amendment and let us deal with the approach. In fact, while we have the Greens interjecting we might deal with the issue of hypocrisy. We see the absolute hypocrisy about this. We have argued for some time that if you make it about a narrow focus you will not be successful and you will not get the change that the people of the ACT would like. We have also argued that you should be listening to the community and consulting with the community on this issue. We ask the question: why would you not want to go broader?
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, one moment, please. Mr Stanhope, Mr Corbell, could you either take it outside or keep it down? Thank you.
Mr Stanhope: Is there anything worth listening to, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: Sit down, Mr Stanhope.
MR SESELJA: Why would you not want to go broader? We look at the issues that you could go to. You could go to the ability for us to choose our own size. You could look at issues around the National Capital Authority and its interference in the broader planning of Canberra. Why would Bob Brown not want to talk about that? Why would he not want to have a debate about that? His record damns him, Mr Speaker. He claims that it is about territory rights, about standing up for the territories. Of course, Bob Brown came to prominence by overriding the Tasmanian government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video