Page 4247 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, I do not really mind. I am not into the “holier than thou, let us not be political” approach to vote grabbing. It is good fun; cheap politics. This attempt is a little more transparent and a little less graceful than most. Whatever; I am not accepting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment today.
I think it is the responsibility of every politician to use every bit of skill they have to argue over every bit of infrastructure we can get for our communities. Mr Coe and co want lower rates. They want to build less infrastructure, cut corners and maintenance and run Canberra down. I disagree with him, but whatever. I respect that he is a politician and that he and his team have a barrow to push.
Paragraph 2 of Ms Le Couteur’s amendment implies that Mr Coe’s position is not carefully considered. Whilst I think it is wrong, I think it is an insult to suggest that he did not consider it carefully first. They have had 19 years to consider it. If Ms Le Couteur is not in the habit of careful consideration of infrastructure projects, that is her position, but I am not sure she should be projecting it on to other members.
Canberra’s road network is an important thing. So is public transport. On the south side of our city our public transport runs on roads. The fact that Ms Le Couteur gets more buses than I do is not necessarily a sign of moral virtue. I mean, that is great. I am really happy that she does, but it is not for me. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that she uses fewer roads than me. As many miles of asphalt and concrete pass under her as pass under me. But if Ms Le Couteur thinks it is an ethical issue, whatever. I support a government with a well-balanced, progressive infrastructure agenda.
This place invests a fair bit of time into public transport; it invests a fair bit of time into public service facilities. The one time someone brings up our biggest infrastructure network process, it gets to be obliterated from the record. No, I do not agree with that.
Amendment agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
Cannabis—commencement of legislation
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.16): I move:
That this Assembly:
(1) notes:
(a) since the passage of the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Cannabis Use) Amendment Bill 2018, the Federal Attorney-General has publicly stated that, on advice, the laws are invalid and are of no effect;
(b) the Federal Attorney-General also stated “The expectation is that police enforce the law. And the law is, as I have been advised and which advice I completely accept, it remains unlawful at Commonwealth law to possess cannabis in the ACT”;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video