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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1906 ..

Mr Stanhope: Why did they do that? Did they get more staffing allowance? Snouts straight into the trough, was it?

MR QUINLAN: No. These are the innocents in this place, the defenders of public propriety. As far as I could see, we were arguing about whether somebody who wanted to give me $3,000 had to write six cheques or two. That was about the sum total of the effect of what we were talking about. But somehow it had to bubble into a major issue. Why does it have to bubble into a major issue? It has to bubble into a major issue because you guys need to hang on to that bit of the changes in the legislation, because a lot of it does point to you.

Here is another coincidence I would like the Assembly to note. Most of us are allocated our salary and our staff allowance and a motor car according to our position. There are three people in this place who have above-cost motor cars, who are subsidised. They do not have a car according to the needs of their job; they have a car according to their personal needs. They are the self-righteous ones. There are three over-the-odds motor cars. Guess who has them? The three folks who were on their feet immediately before the dinner recess dripping with self-righteousness. We are not even talking about protecting someone else. Each of them has at some time been an Independent and at some time been a member of a party, according to convenience.

Mr Speaker, I wanted to make that observation, having sat through what I thought were three speeches that were quite out of place, given the individuals who delivered them.

MR BERRY (7.36): I am always happy to try to help set the record straight, and I am pleased to support my colleague Mr Quinlan in his expose on the levels of hypocrisy that hitherto have been paralleled only amongst demagogues in other countries around the world. The hypocrisy in this place is beyond parallel. How dare these so-called Independents get on their hind legs and criticise the Labor Party and the Liberal Party for the way they have operated in this country-the Labor Party for over 100 years, and always in the interests of collectivism; and the Liberal Party since the 1940s, with their particular philosophy and a commitment to their particular constituency.

All of a sudden three Independents appeared on the scene. Mr Moore, the planning guru, arrived on the scene in the nimby party, the residents rabble. They line up in this place and present themselves as the statues of commitment and philosophy that everybody else should measure themselves by.

It was not long before some of them felt that they would be more comfortable with the Liberals, and off they went. Mr Moore was indignant. He said, "What an outrageous thing to do! You came into this place as a member of the Residents Rally and you throw in with the Liberals. You rats!" He was outraged. He was purple, livid. Of course it was not long before Mr Moore thought, "There is a bit in this. I have been watching this. There is something here. Balance of power is very important if you use it properly."

I was a member of a Labor government, and I strongly recall the Moore Independents. What an odd name-a political party called the Moore Independents. It was hypocritical by its name alone. Pretty soon after the Moore Independents had found

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