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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (6 December) . . Page.. 3760 ..

Mr HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the major issue I was going to have to face as to why we should not deal with this issue in the way suggested?

Mr Hargreaves: We said it was silly.

MR HUMPHRIES: The arguments just were not there; so it is difficult to know what is the rationale. I heard the interjection that the motion is silly. Mr Speaker, I do not think that it is silly to confront Canberra bashing wherever it might occur. Canberra bashing is a problem that members opposite have been keen to put on the record whenever they have seen it occur on the part of the Liberal and National Party members of the federal government.

They have been very keen to attack it whenever they have seen it being uttered by people who are their political opponents. But, strangely, on this occasion they have a problem using the same logic, the same defensiveness of Canberra, when we are talking about an attack by members of the Australian Labor Party on Canberra. That is what this is, Mr Speaker; it is an attack on Canberra.

For example, to refer to providing funding for roads in the ACT as a sick joke, as did Mr Warren Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory, is a reflection on Canberra. There is no other way that you can look at it. Again, I listened this morning waiting for a member of the opposition to explain how they interpreted these remarks to see what kindly spin they could place on those remarks and did not hear any, which I assume is a concession on the part of those opposite that there is no understanding of any appropriate message that might be taken out of these comments by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for the Northern Territory.

Mr Speaker, it is just disgraceful to describe funding for ACT roads in that way. I heard Mr Quinlan say that he considers, on the part of the ALP, that roads in the ACT are in an unsatisfactory state, that apparently roads need to be upgraded. We have agreed that there is a problem and, presumably, we have agreed that there is a response to that problem on the part of the federal government in actually producing some money. Should that not be welcomed by all of us here, and I assume that it is? Should it not, in turn, be a case of concern for us all if there are attacks on that process by members of the federal parliament, members potentially of a future government? It is a matter of great concern indeed.

Why is it that some members are not prepared to stand up for Canberra if it comes at a cost in political terms to them? Mr Speaker, people will not have any hesitation in saying that the Liberal Party in this place has been prepared to stand up for Canberra, even when it has meant coming into conflict with our federal colleagues on the hill. We have done that again and again.

We have been prepared to bite the bullet because we see our primary responsibility as being not to the Liberal Party of Australia, but to the electors of the ACT. We represent the Liberal Party in this place, we are proud to do so, and we fight the good fight on behalf of the party that we all believe in. But we also know that there is an overriding concern and consideration to make sure that if our electors are being disadvantaged, we stand up for them; that if our territory is being aspersed, we stand up for it; that if our rights are being derogated from or if money which we are rightfully entitled to is being

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