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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (10 July) . . Page.. 2373 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Those opposite pretend that this has been an accident of history, that somehow there has been some kind of conspiracy to exclude them from a role in this matter and that the result of negotiations has been that the supervised injecting place is to be deferred until 1 January 2002. We are expected to believe that they are matters entirely beyond their control. The SIP is to be deferred-

Mr Berry: What happened to bipartisanship?

MR HUMPHRIES: It went out the window when you broke a quarter of a century of parliamentary tradition and blocked supply. That is what happened to it, Mr Berry. It happened when you dumped a quarter of a century of parliamentary tradition and blocked supply. Those opposite may well complain, squeal, twist and turn, but they know that the position the Assembly finds itself in today is the product of their handiwork, and theirs principally. Those opposite profess to support having a supervised injecting place trial. We understand that they have often argued for it to happen.

Mr Corbell: How will you be voting today?

MR HUMPHRIES: I will be voting for my bill, Mr Corbell. Those opposite pretend that they support this concept; yet last Thursday week they voted in this place on the budget in a way which they must have known would put that facility at risk, because the moment the government's budget was defeated on the floor of this place it was inevitable that the government would have to try to negotiate a way through the problem. It was inevitable and those opposite, in voting against the budget, led inevitably to the government needing to come to terms with the crossbenchers' concerns about the SIP and to ensure that the SIP was removed or deferred in order to facilitate the passing of the budget.

If the people opposite are serious about being supporters of the SIP, they should not have threatened the budget allocation for that facility, but they did. They did for the basest of reasons: because they are hypocrites, because they decided that they would rather take a cheap shot-

Mr Hargreaves: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to have the word "hypocrite" withdrawn. We had to withdraw it before; I did so myself.

MR SPEAKER: The word "hypocrite" has been withdrawn before.

MR HUMPHRIES: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The reality, however, is that those opposite profess to want the SIP, but blocked the budget that contained the funding for it.

Mr Berry: Oh, get out!

MR HUMPHRIES: You did, Mr Berry.

Mr Berry: Ha, ha!

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