Page 1896 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS ELLIS: Yes, it is. It was a worry in this case because the people who were going to move into that accommodation did not need that sort of objection. If that part of the community had got away with their objection, they would have had to go elsewhere and elsewhere and elsewhere at a time when they needed protection and encouragement. I would like the Opposition, and in particular Mr Cornwell, to think about that. As I said earlier, when it is necessary, consultation is done. As I also said, I do not need to get permission to live anywhere else in this town, and I do not think some of these people need automatically to have to do that either. As a matter of social justice and access and equity to accommodation in this town, we should encourage these people and not deter them.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.44): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate because I think there are some points that need to be made. First of all, it is typical of those opposite and their friends on the cross benches to distort what is being said in order to make the target easier to attack. Let me put this on record for all those opposite, so that they know absolutely and clearly where we stand: We support, we always have supported and we always will support the supported accommodation assistance program. It is an important part of protecting our community and providing help for those who most need it.
Those people opposite who pretend otherwise and put out press releases saying that we are not in favour of SAAP deserve to be condemned. If ever I have seen a cheap political point, that is one, and it has been taken by others in this place before today.
Mr Connolly: You are trying to disallow their funding.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am glad you raised that point, Mr Connolly. You know full well, as do your colleagues, that the only way a member of the Opposition can have a disallowable instrument reconsidered is by moving for its disallowance. There is no other way. We can raise a discussion, we can talk about it in an adjournment debate or an MPI or something of that kind, if we happen to be lucky enough to get the fall of the dice; but the only way we can force it to be reconsidered by the Government - - -
Mr Connolly: You could have had an MPI on SAAP.
MR HUMPHRIES: This Government ignores MPIs with considerable ease. I have not seen them take much notice of an MPI for a long time, particularly where it is recommended that they do something they do not want to do. The fact is that you would have had to take notice if people had been prepared to support this motion on the floor of the Assembly, which is not going to be the case, unfortunately. As a result, there is no alternative for an Opposition but to raise them in this manner.
I point out that, the next time someone opposite, particularly on the cross benches, comes forward in this place with a motion of disallowance and says that they need to do this in order to be able to have some matter of government policy reconsidered, they can expect to get attacked on the whole question of whether they support the program that that motion of disallowance relates to, not just the specific matter that is being disallowed. They have brought that down on their own heads by their conduct in this place. They know full well that there is only one way of doing this, and it is the way we have adopted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .