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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 115 ..

This government avoids the hard issues: health, law and order, nursing home accommodation—and graffiti, Mr Hargreaves, graffiti. You tend to ignore these, do you not? You would much rather go for the soft issues. That is the way that you think; that is the way you wish to direct. Of course, it is a feature of Labor governments that eventually this madness takes over.

Mr Stefaniak: Bob Carr’s not touching it, though.

MR CORNWELL: Indeed. But instead of continuing with running the country or running the state or running the territory, as people would wish, they have to start tinkering around with the social issues.

Mr Pratt: A bit like God, really.

MR CORNWELL: Well, yes. I will accept that interjection—a bit like God. The point I am making is that this is where they start coming undone. Mr Stanhope, by interjection, earlier talked about a minority government. Mr Stanhope, you are one because you are out of step with the majority of people here in the ACT. You are a minority government in that respect, even though you may have a couple of fellow travellers on the crossbench, and I would identify the Greens and the Democrats, as I do not wish to offend Mrs Cross. The fact is that you are a minority government in this respect.

I do not believe that the average person really wants to get involved in these things. I do not think they are terribly interested. They are however interested in health, they are interested in law and order and they are interested in the day-to-day activities. I would submit that these things are too hard for this government; therefore they will address what they see as the social issues. That is what they are looking at, and that is what they think will bring forth support for them.

I repeat Cathy Ransom’s comment that “once upon a time this was left to individuals’ philosophical and religious choices.” I do not see anything wrong with that. I do not believe that that is a problem. If you are talking about choice and you are talking about tolerance, what could be better than an individual’s philosophical and religious choice on these matters? But no, you wish to nail it down in this piece of legislation—and the next one, I hasten to add—as though people are no longer allowed to have their own views about anything.

Mr Stanhope: They’re not, Greg. That’s the point. The law prevents them. We are removing the discrimination. That’s the point: we are allowing choice.

MR CORNWELL: You’re not. You can move all the legislation you like—

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Cornwell! Direct your comments through the chair.

MR CORNWELL: Mr Speaker, let me say to the Chief Minister that he can introduce all the legislation that he likes but the fact is that you cannot change people’s minds and hearts by legislation. It will not work, but you are obviously carried away with the thought that you can do it. Good luck to you, but you are wrong and you are going to be

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