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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2495 ..

MR WOOD (11.26): I wish to speak to the amendment, not to close the debate. I thought that the Greens made a very strange comment. They said that we should not play silly buggers around words.

MR SPEAKER: I did not hear that; but, if they did, they should withdraw the word.

MR WOOD: I am not asking for that. The wording fits the Greens, perhaps. But, if anybody is playing silly buggers, it is Mr Moore. He wanted to get his mark on this motion, so he had to find a way to change it. Mr Moore recently had just cause to be angry with Mr Howard. Mr Howard cut off the heroin trial, which is something that Mr Moore has worked very hard for over many years. I think Mr Moore had every right to be very angry with John Howard. Is he going to be angry with the decision or with John Howard? It is a lot of nonsense to put the word "decision" in there. The decision is - on heroin, as on living in Canberra - John Howard's. By doing this, Mr Moore is trying to take it one step further away from the Prime Minister and to do not much more than administer a bit of a slap on the wrist. If there is a chap in court here in Canberra charged with putting a bullet through someone's head, is he charged with the decision he took, or is he charged himself for what he did? That is exactly the case in this instance. We ought to be critical of John Howard, the man, for what he is doing. I urge members to recognise that and to support the motion and not the amendment.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (11.28): The amendment, in effect, is no different from the motion which was proposed by Mr Wood, except that it criticises the decision rather than the Prime Minister. From my point of view, I think that the Prime Minister himself deserves the strongest criticism. If Mr Moore wants to put in the word "decision" to divert a little bit of attention away from the Prime Minister and the effect of the motion, then there is not much we can do about it if he happens to have the numbers around this place. But, for my part, I believe that the Prime Minister deserves the criticism, and the amendment looks like the actions of somebody just trying to get a scent on every electric light pole.

So far as we are concerned, we think our motion is better because it criticises the Prime Minister. Michael Moore thinks his amendment is better because it criticises the decision. The Liberals would much rather not criticise the Prime Minister. They would much rather criticise anything else but the Prime Minister. It is interesting that Michael Moore, like a magnet, was drawn to the Liberals to have some discussions about it but did not come anywhere near the Labor Party. We are not surprised by that, because conservatives like Michael Moore - people with conservative social values like Michael Moore - - -

Members interjected.

MR BERRY: People might laugh. Michael Moore mucks around with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll; but when was the last time that Michael Moore mentioned jobs?

Mr Moore: On the radio last week.

MR BERRY: That is the first time, then.

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