Page 3983 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Today is just another example of the policy hypocrisy from the Liberal Party, the conservative party of Australian politics. It is perhaps one of the great frauds that they perpetuate on the people of Australia that they are a liberal party, because they are not; they are the conservative party and they are out of office in every jurisdiction in Australia. We all know why. The people of Australia know why; they cast their votes decisively against the policies, rhetoric, hate and bile that you get from those opposite. This is just another example. They have nothing substantive to say on the policy issues; it is a matter of tabling a few photos of graffiti. That is the key point. That is Mr Pratt’s major point, and the best he can do. They have been building up to this all day, throughout question time. And what do we get? We get 12 photos tabled.
It proves that Mr Pratt, or at least someone in his office, can use a digital camera. We note that; that is an important advance. He is able to print it out and bring it in here. It is interesting that, when challenged, he admits that the graffiti was on private property. To hold the minister responsible for graffiti on private property and say that that is the reason that the Assembly should have no confidence in the minister is a farce.
The people of Canberra know it is a farce. They know that this mob opposite are a farce. This party, in every parliament in Australia, will be in opposition for quite some time, it would seem, because they are perpetuating a fraud on the people of Australia. They are not a liberal party anymore; they are the conservative party of Australian politics. Long may they sit on the opposition benches. Contributions like today’s give further evidence to the people of the Australian Capital Territory that that is where they belong, as petty nitpickers with nothing substantive to add to the public policy debate in this territory.
All they do is seek to nitpick, and the best they can do is to table some photos of graffiti. Seriously, I cannot believe that they would expect this Assembly to take a vote of no confidence in this minister on the basis of the presentations we have seen from the shadow minister and from the Leader of the Opposition—whilst he holds that role, because, as we know, Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja are doing the numbers and doing the deal to remove the current leadership team. I think we can boldly predict that by Christmas there will be a new leader of the Liberal Party, and that would be the third or fourth in this term. There you go: the party of opposition in every parliament in Australia.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.26): I have to agree with Mr Stefaniak that there are a lot of intelligent people in Canberra and I wonder what they would think about this if they could see it. I take an objection to private members day being taken up in this way. I feel that the debates that we were having about school closures, and that we are about to have—I hope—about greenhouse and the government’s climate change strategy are of a great deal more import and a great deal more interest to the people of Canberra.
Mr Seselja: Mr, Speaker, I take a point of order as to relevance. What Dr Foskey is saying is not relevant to the subject matter before the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Dr Foskey had just entered the debate and was talking about some of the things that Mr Stefaniak had said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .