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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 854 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: You go back and check the Hansard, Mr Stanhope, and you see what has been said in this place in the last few days. You have a look at what you have said. Mr Speaker, you will see on the record that the Labor Party, having run out of ideas, is resorting to abuse.

Mr Speaker, I think we should be clear about these amendments. The amendments moved by the Labor Party are nothing short of a move to adjourn the debate, effectively, until much later this year. I ask the Assembly not to cruel a viable and attractive proposition for the ACT community in the joint venture between ACTEW and AGL. The fact is that this is an acceptable and appropriate arrangement in all the circumstances.

The last thing I wish to say, Mr Speaker, is in response to Mr Berry's claims a moment ago that he has not heard about the 20 redundancies which are being suggested as a maximum loss of jobs by ACTEW if this particular deal goes ahead. I quote from the Assembly from Tuesday. Mr Corbell asked me a question about jobs and I said, in response to his question:

Mr Smyth: When did you say that?

MR HUMPHRIES: That was on Tuesday of this week and it was not the only time this week that I made that statement. Despite all these furphies and deceptions we are hearing from the other side, Mr Speaker, the fact is that the record is clear about this. What is the Labor Party's position? That is the question I ask.

MR HARGREAVES (8.15): Essentially, we are talking about the amendments moved by Mr Quinlan and a subsequent amendment from Mr Kaine. In essence, the Government has not proved a thing. It has delivered no numbers apart from some airy-fairy $100m, which has about as much veracity as their $41/2m saving for the prison. It just disappears into thin air whenever they feel like it. It is about as good as the Government's promise to deliver its responses to this chamber by the end of this sitting. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It is the same as your verbal agreements, Minister. They are not worth the paper they are written on. What we are trying to do here is to say the Bill part is a "For Sale" sign.

Mr Rugendyke: Verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on?

MR HARGREAVES: Yes. The verbal agreement is not worth - - -

Mr Rugendyke: Say it again, John. Say it again, mate.

MR HARGREAVES: You should get into your history, Mr Rugendyke.

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