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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2394 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

afflicted by drug addiction to continue to use the unsupervised and unhygienic places that are used today. That is a point that this house should be reminded of regularly.

We have also heard the government say, quite obviously to rationalise and justify the position it finds itself, that the ALP blocked supply. I actually said in my caucus, "What is going to happen, of course, is that the government, the crossbenchers who brought us here today and Mr Moore first have to find some accommodation. Then, of course, they have to find the scapegoat and try to rationalise the total backflips and the total prostitution of principles that we have seen, particularly on behalf of Mr Moore, Mrs Carnell and Mr Smyth."

Because the ALP considered that this was an important issue, we voted against the budget, as we have done before. We voted against the budget in the people's house, in the house where government is formed, because we do not endorse the last letter of that budget. That is a fairly normal process in the house of the people in any place in Australia.

Mr Humphries: But not to block it altogether.

MR QUINLAN: The blockage occurred because the people who support the government, the people who put this government here, the people on the crossbench over there, Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke, the people who form part of the loose conservative coalition that governs this place, voted against the government. Your coalition that puts you in power cracked. This happens every now and then in governments. A couple of people out of the loose coalition in this place crossed the floor on your primary political document.

Mr Humphries: It's loose, then. If that's the coalition, it's very loose.

MR QUINLAN: Yes. Now, in order that we could honour legislation debated and passed in this place before, the ALP came forward with a couple of propositions, including supporting the budget, and the proposition that maybe the government should split the appropriation bills.

Mr Humphries: That wasn't going to work, Ted. We tried that.

MR QUINLAN: The Treasurer points out, right at this moment, "We tried that and it will not work." Now, what does that imply? What that implies is that this is not just about whether or not a couple of people in this place vote for a supervised injecting room or not. It is not about whether Mr Osborne and Mr Rugendyke will give the supervised injecting place trial their support. It is about the fact that they say they will not support a government that has one. So if there is a supervised injecting place, no matter whether there was a separate vote, no matter whether a majority of members of this place voted for it and put it into legislation, those two would still vote against the budget, and you have the hide to say in this place that the ALP is blocking supply. What a joke you are. Let me use a previous statement in this place-what a joke you are.

What we have to ask ourselves now is this: what does this mean for government in the ACT from this point on? What else won't this rump, the back end of your loose conservative coalition, abide? We have heard a lot about principles. I understand from

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