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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3606 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

"Why do we not sit around and discuss the issue, instead of trying to make political mileage out of it?", he has said publicly on a number of occasions. He, and he alone, is the reason. He does not want to be a cooperative player. All he wants to do is sit there in opposition and say, "I will kick and I will scream that everything is going wrong and in that way I will become Chief Minister".

Interestingly enough, it is likely to work. I expect that he will be Chief Minister following the February election. The Datacol polls in the Canberra Times indicate very clearly that Labor are doing extremely well. My observation from watching these polls carefully since 1988 is that they are very accurate. I expect that Mr Berry will indeed be the next Chief Minister. What chance will he have of a cooperative approach when he wants to do things? Like his counterpart in the Federal Parliament, John Howard, he will be saying, "Come on, let us have a bipartisan approach", after he has kicked heads in on the other side. Kim Beazley is absolutely right on this issue. John Howard does not deserve a bipartisan approach. He is the one who rejected a bipartisan approach by Ministers from across Australia, including a Labor Minister. He does not deserve a bipartisan approach; nor does Mr Berry.

Letters have been written to the editor and pressure has been exerted by people within Mr Berry's party, not to mention the people who have left his party because of what he said. If he thinks he is doing very well on this issue, then he ought to look at his records. People have come to me and said, "How can I help you? I am leaving Labor because of Wayne Berry and his approach to illicit drugs". Then we get this duplicitous approach. Wayne arrives in this Assembly and he says, "I am going to put up a motion". The first motion he puts up is the one - - -

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I do not think "duplicitous" is allowed in this place, and I think he should be asked to withdraw it.

MR SPEAKER: I will check the word.

MR MOORE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will continue while you are doing that. It seems to me that anybody who reads on yesterday's notice paper the first motion Mr Berry put up and compares it with the motion that he moved today will see the duplicitous nature of Mr Berry and the way he approaches these things.

MR SPEAKER: Would you mind withdrawing the word, Mr Moore.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word "duplicitous" in favour of "double standards". You only have to read yesterday's notice paper and look at today's notice paper and I believe that many people - although I will not be able to - will draw the conclusion that it is duplicitous on Mr Berry's part. I am not able to draw that conclusion, but I am sure that many people will be able to. We get a much more reasonable motion on today's notice paper. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Berry about the approach John Howard has taken. It is absolutely narrow and incomplete. There is no question about that.

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