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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 354 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Our party is a broad church. It represents many points of view, and members of the party hold different views about this issue. I see that as a point of strength in the Liberal Party rather than as a point of weakness. I think the party draws strength from the fact that there are different views within it on this very critical issue. With every remark made by Mr Berry - and, I was going to say, his colleagues opposite, but he has been abandoned pretty substantially by those opposite - with every remark made on this subject by him sticking the boot into this issue, he proves that this Labor Party opposite is prepared to sacrifice principle when it comes to trying to win a few votes.

Mr Berry: Ha, ha! You set the standard on this.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry laughs. On this issue, Mr Speaker, we have - - -

Mr Berry: You set the standard right across the board - scurrilous.

MR HUMPHRIES: I see, "across the board" - not on this issue, "across the board". Apparently, baiting the Labor Party across the board allows them to destroy the bipartisanship that might have been possible on this issue. Clearly, that is the name of the game. It is revenge time. Get the Liberals when there is a division or weakness. Try to drive a wedge between them. Bugger the heroin trial. Do not worry about the people Ms Follett just spoke of, the people in this community whose lives are affected irrevocably by their addiction to heroin. Forget those people. They are victims in this process who can be easily dispensed with by Mr Berry and his colleagues. They do not matter. They are dross who can be thrown to one side in this debate. You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr Berry - a former Minister for Health prepared to use this issue for that kind of purpose.

There was the opportunity for us today to have a sensible, rational debate about this. Ms Follett claimed in this place that she did not know why the debate was not supposed to happen today. She knows perfectly well why it was not supposed to happen; Mr Berry knows too. These hyenas opposite, who are prepared to make an issue - - -

Mr Berry: You explain.

MR HUMPHRIES: Now he jumps up and gets all upset. These people opposite, these hypocrites opposite, are prepared to put their hands on their hearts and say, "We are concerned about the people in this community affected by heroin addiction. We're concerned about those in the community whose homes have been robbed, whose lives have been affected by armed robberies, who have otherwise been hurt and damaged by the problems of heroin and other addictive drugs in our community". They are prepared to say all that, but they are not prepared to advance the issue towards doing something about it in a constructive bipartisan way. Shame on Mr Berry and his colleagues for that!

I would have thought that what has happened on the part of the Government with respect to the heroin trial and the proposals for it has been the very antithesis of grandstanding. Grandstanding is taking an issue on which we all know you win some votes, and beating your chest and saying, "I am in favour of this issue". In my book, that is grandstanding.

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