Page 2961 - Week 13 - Thursday, 23 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Well, do it in the correct parliamentary manner.
Mr Wood: He did not want to recognise it; that is the point.
MR HUMPHRIES: According to Mr Wood, there is no way for an opposition to express a neutral approach to the Government's budget. The fact is that this Government will have to stand or fall on its own budget.
Now, you want a reason. You want a reason for this motion of no confidence in this Government by the opposition. I will give you one reason. It is the farce which is this Government's handling of the hospital crisis in this Territory. It is so severe that the interim board of the hospitals had to write to this Government imploring it to come and help it out of the politically difficult position in which it found itself, where it could not control the budget because of cost blow-outs. What support, what help, did this Government give to that hospital board? Absolutely none.
There is a crisis in our hospitals system. Ministers, you are apparently not prepared to acknowledge it, but it is there. Go and have a look in our hospitals; it is there, and you should be dealing with it. The fact is, Mr Speaker, this Government does not have the strength of vision, and in large part I might say that the absence of such a strength of vision - - -
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker; we have all heard this drivel before. I do not have the standing order in front of me but this seems to me to be a matter that is relevant to questions and debate in this place before, therefore it does not seem appropriate for it to be discussed again.
MR SPEAKER: I will take Mr Berry's point on this, Mr Humphries. I believe that the adjournment debate really should be around irrelevant issues. We should not debate things that have been debated on the floor in this chamber earlier today.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, my time is being used up by this. The standing orders say quite clearly that there is no requirement of relevance in the adjournment debate. It does not say that I have to speak on an irrelevant topic. The issues I have raised have already been spoken on by both previous speakers. I do not see why I cannot address it as well, and I will do so.
The fact is that the Ministers opposite do not have the strength of vision to carry out a program which is going to deal with the fundamental problems facing this Territory. You just do not have it, and part of the reason stems from the fact that you do not have the numbers on the floor of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .