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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2382 ..

MR SPEAKER: I want some relevance, though, on the matter before the house. If you want to talk about the appropriation bill, there will be an opportunity later to do so, but I do want some relevance brought into the debate. I accept that-

Mr Berry: I agree with Mr Humphries. We just cannot wait to give him a belt.

MR SPEAKER: Be quiet, Mr Berry, otherwise you will not be speaking on anything. I accept that it is an integral part of the bill before us. However, all members should recognise the fact that we are talking to this bill.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Mr Speaker. I will make the point here about the way negotiations were conducted because these negotiations led to this bill being before the Assembly today. They are an intimate part of it and they explain why this bill is before us. The government was told by the opposition that it should resign. That was the response we had; we should resign. Even Mr Stanhope admits that when he spoke to Mrs Carnell on Monday morning, the first thing he asked her was whether she was going to resign.

That was the position that Labor appeared to us to be taking. Certainly, up until Monday morning, we were being told publicly that we should resign. The opposition has not explained how resigning would help solve the problem because we would be left with no budget and an opposition which was patently unable to pass the budget that we had brought down.

Mr Stanhope: You do not know that. It was not for you to decide that.

MR HUMPHRIES: You could have done what we have just done, of course; you could have dumped the SIP. I have no doubt that, had you been put into office, you would have dumped the SIP.

Mr Kaine: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Chief Minister has introduced an amendment to change the Supervised Injecting Place Trial Act. He has been speaking for about 25 minutes and not once has he addressed the need for that amendment. When is he going to get round to explaining to this place why we have to change the act. He is having a great little political argument with the opposition, but when is he going to explain to this place why we should consider the amendment to the Supervised Injecting Place Trial Act of 1999? I have not heard a word from him yet as to why we should do that and I am wondering when he is going to get to it.

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order, but Mr Humphries can take that on board.

MR HUMPHRIES: You have already ruled on this question, Mr Speaker, and I have explained that point already; so Mr Kaine should listen. The fact is that those opposite could not have passed this budget.

Mr Stanhope: Yes, we could.

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