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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 853 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am saying the arguments are dishonest. You have ruled on that in the past, Mr Speaker, as being an acceptable use of the word "dishonest".

MR SPEAKER: The argument is. It is not an attack on the party.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the dishonest argument we have heard tonight is this: "If you just do something different to proceed with this thing we will support your move. If you just look at the sale of ACTEW energy retail we will look seriously at your move. If you just talk to the company in Queensland that want to buy a great chunk of ACTEW, we will be happier with the move that you are making. Whatever you are doing you should not be doing. Something else is what we are after". Mr Speaker, we do not know what the something else is.

Throughout this debate, throughout the last two weeks, the Labor Party have studiously avoided saying at any stage what it is that they would support. Mr Speaker, we know that that is for a very simple reason. We know that from an article that appeared in the Canberra Times on 28 June 1998. The Labor Party conference of that weekend passed a resolution opposing any form of privatisation at all, and we have heard from the debate in the last few days that Labor considers even the creation of a joint venture to be a form of privatisation. So it is clear that any of these proposals, no matter what form they take, even the proposal from the company in Queensland, would be unacceptable to the Labor Party. We know that, Mr Speaker. We know that perfectly well. These people are coming in here and telling us that in reality they just want something different, some different configuration, and they will be interested in having a look at that. Well, of course, they will not.

Mr Speaker, I have in my office a fairly simple test as well about what goes on in this place. The test in my office is that when the Labor Party starts calling people names it is a pretty clear indication that they are running out of arguments based on logic. We have heard tonight about how Mr Moore is stupid and Mr Rugendyke is being conned and - - -

Mr Rugendyke: No, stupid and conned.

MR HUMPHRIES: I beg your pardon. Mr Rugendyke was stupid and conned. In the last 48 hours we have had a litany of insults and abuse from the Labor Party about people on this side of the chamber, or anybody who is prepared to oppose their point of view.

Mr Stanhope: That is nonsense.

MR HUMPHRIES: You go back and check the Hansard, Mr Stanhope.

Mr Stanhope: You demean yourself, Attorney.

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