Gary’s seat an “insurance policy”

GnT 23 November 2007 28

Gary Humphries is fighting for his seat, saying we should vote for him since Labor will probably win government, so keeping the Libs in control of the Senate will be an “insurance policy”.

Funny, he didn’t seem too concerned about having an insurance policy in the Senate over the last 3 years, when the Coalition had control of both houses.

He must be the only politician campaigning on the platform of the other guys winning.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Gary’s seat an “insurance policy”
ant ant 9:59 pm 24 Nov 07

Well, according to Nick Minchin, Humph has hung on. which means the Liberals will hang on to the senate until the new senators elected tonight take their seats in June. See if Humph had lost, his vanquisher would have taken his/her seat immediatley, unlocking the Lib. hold on the Senate.

ephemerac ephemerac 10:20 pm 23 Nov 07

I’ve never voted lib before, but Humphries was definitely the most impressive on Stateline tonight. He’ll get my vote, the prospect of Kerrie Tucker getting in fills me with horror.

Do people actually realise what they’re voting for when they decide to put in a vote for Kerrie, and what it will potentially mean for this town? What does she stand for? More action on climate change. Fair enough. But I don’t think the Greens can claim the high ground on that one any more. Everyone’s trying to be greener in the me too debate. Kerrie doesn’t want large shopping centres. But look around next time you’re in one. Everyone else is there too. Surely its better for people to be spending their bucks here than all in Sydney like they used to. Kerrie doesn’t want development in the Molonglo Valley. What about affordable housing? What about providing houses close to the city so people can actually get on a bus when they want to. And as for the insurance policy argument – what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I hadn’t though about Gaz being an insurance policy before, but the argument he ran tonight works for me.

sepi sepi 10:02 pm 23 Nov 07

I get regular letters from Bob McM offering to meet at local shops to discuss any issues I have. I never go, but that’s not his fault. I think he’s probably pretty good too.

And I don’t really see what Gary H has done for Cnaberra. He stood up for Screen Sound, but they were still merged with the AFI and went downhill (and weren’t allowed to talk publically about it.)

VicePope VicePope 8:16 pm 23 Nov 07

Humphries has to go, either as collateral damage and a sacrifice to the need to restore some balance to the Senate or because he is useless. Either will do me, as would the appalling way he cut in to Lundy’s attempts to answer on Stateline. Put Humphries Last!

As to the overall result, who knows? The Coalition, and especially the PM, have diminished this country with every day in office. Not sure the other mob would be much better, but they might be and so they get a higher spot on my ballot paper. This is despite Ellis being one of the most ordinaire candidates imaginable – having had some dealings with McMullan, I think he’s smart and will be useful if they form government.

Pandy Pandy 6:22 pm 23 Nov 07

Humphries you twa..twit.

If you hold balance of power, all you will do is what the party machine tells you to do. You won’t have a concience. You wont support the people of Canberra. A couple of back room policies promulgated by a couple of interest groups will tell you what to do.

Don’t insult my intelligence.

Fletcher123 Fletcher123 2:58 pm 23 Nov 07

Thanks for the info Thumper. That’s right, Bob was Minister for Trade. I could have been wrong stating he was a cabinet minister, as I’m not sure Trade is quite that distinguished, and I couldn’t be arsed doing the research right now.

Yes, the bearded clamb (sorry, no offence to female genitalia, as they’re beautiful) has had quite a career locally, but he could be in deep poo tomorrow.

Crikey Crikey 2:30 pm 23 Nov 07

It’s a disgrace that Humphries is struggling to hold his seat. If it was Carnell she would have walked it in. I am in small business and Humphries has done nothing to assist his ‘natural’ constituency.

Perhaps time to throw him out and get a better Liberal up next time.

v_man_returns v_man_returns 2:27 pm 23 Nov 07

I really like Humph, and would like to see him stay.

Thumper Thumper 2:14 pm 23 Nov 07

To be fair, here’s the Bearded Wonders CV

He (Gary) came to Canberra to study in 1978 and has been in the national capital ever since. He studied at the Australian National University, completing Arts and Law degrees.

After practising as a lawyer, he entered politics at the age of 30. He was first elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly in 1989, at the inauguration of self-government for the ACT. Gary spent most of his political career in the Legislative Assembly as a minister, holding at various times most of the major portfolios in the ACT Government, including serving as Minister for Health, Minister for Education, as Treasurer, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Planning and as Attorney General.

He was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party from 1989 to 1993 and from 1997 to 2000.

In October 2000, on the resignation of Kate Carnell, Gary was elected ACT Leader of the Liberal Party and, subsequently, Chief Minister. He served in that position until his government was defeated in the October 2001 Assembly election, despite retaining its seven seats. He was Leader of the Opposition until his election as a Senator.

Gary was re-elected to the Senate in 2004. He chairs the Senate Community Affairs Committee.

Not sure if a lawyer qualifies as a real job 😉

Thumper Thumper 2:10 pm 23 Nov 07

In 1975 Bob became Secretary of the Western Australian Branch of the ALP. In August 1981 he was elected National Secretary and moved with his family to Canberra. During his time as National Secretary, Bob directed the ALP’s successful election campaigns in 1983, 1984 and 1987.

In February 1988, following the resignation of Senator Susan Ryan, Bob was sworn in as Senator for the Australian Capital Territory. In 1990 he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and in 1991 became Manager of Government Business in the Senate.

In 1993 Bob was appointed Minister for the Arts and Administrative Services and became a member of the Cabinet, the first time the Arts portfolio was represented in Cabinet. In January 1994, he was appointed Minister for Trade.

Following a redistribution of Canberra’s House of Representative seats, Bob stood for the seat of Canberra in 1996, and was elected. Following a redistribution in 1998, Bob became Member for Fraser.

Since 1996, Bob has held a number of different Shadow Ministerial positions, including Shadow Treasurer, Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and Shadow Minister for Finance and Small Business. He is currently Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations and Shadow Minister for International Development Assistance. In addition to those responsibilities he is Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives.

Has this guy ever had a real job?

Actually Fletch, I agree with you on the bogus letterbox drop, disgusting tactics….

Fletcher123 Fletcher123 1:59 pm 23 Nov 07

It’s actually spelled McMullan, not McMullen. He was a cabinet minister in the Keating government, held several portfolios. I’m sure he does a lot, but doesn’t seek the public profile the same way Humprhies does.

I saw a clip on last night’s news about a radio debate between him, Tucker and Lundy. It was appalling listening to him vigorously defend that bogus liberal party leaflet dropped in our letter boxes last weekend. You know, the green one designed to look like an ALP leaflet bagging the greens, calling them extremists, with Lindsay Tanner’s photo on the back, authorised by some bloke who happens to be the president of the Liberal Party in the ACT. Although I’d never vote for Humphries, up until then I thought he had at least a shred of credibility.

Thumper Thumper 1:52 pm 23 Nov 07


Anyone having a Don’s Party?

regularbrowse regularbrowse 1:50 pm 23 Nov 07

This is a bit off topic … But I was glad to hear the ban on TV political had started … but getting sick of all the political advertisements on line. Even on RiotACT. (Yes, I know you are running a business.) Hope you are getting lots of advertising dollars to cover the lean times post-election.

pierce pierce 1:49 pm 23 Nov 07

We could try a write-in campaign regularbrowse – SGS for the Senate.

regularbrowse regularbrowse 1:44 pm 23 Nov 07

Does this mean all the major parties (ALP, Democrats, Greens and now the Libs) are campaigning for our Senate vote on the basis it will restore balance… ?
Voting for an independent is starting to look more attractive. Just wish there was a strong ‘Andren’ style independent candidate here.

thetruth thetruth 1:31 pm 23 Nov 07

The lie is the marketing type lie (like new improved).

Kerrie Tucker’s marketing pitch was:

“Kerrie Tucker for an independent Senate”

Well – Kerrie Tucker is a partisan politician as the member the Green’s (first “marketing lie” by de-partying the marketing pitch) – ie if you want an independent vote for an independent.

Any third force is not independent of the other two. If lib and labor agree greens are irrelevant. If libs and labor disagree then they are dealt in, but labor knows that they will NEVER vote will the libs – so the greens vote is cheap.

If the greens push their agenda hard they will never get the preferences of labor again – ie they are dependent on labor for their policital future.

So why are they independent? They are just after as much power and a small supporter base will give.

They are not putting themselves forward as a alternative government.

Thumper Thumper 1:06 pm 23 Nov 07

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think the worse thing that happened last election was the majority in the senate by the libs…

areaman areaman 1:04 pm 23 Nov 07

The lie is that Dems, Greens are restoring the balance of power. No, they just want to get into the senate, not restore a balance of power.

Even if I agree, which I don’t, at least no one group would have a majority. It would require at least two of the three parties, whihc would be a plus for democracy.

Thumper Thumper 1:00 pm 23 Nov 07

Libs will get hammered tomorrow, both in reps and senate.

The lie is that Dems, Greens are restoring the balance of power. No, they just want to get into the senate, not restore a balance of power.

swissbignose swissbignose 12:57 pm 23 Nov 07

He does have a point though given the Save Our Senate coalition is based on a lie.

What lie is that?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter


Search across the site