Page 3990 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ultimate point in Mr Smyth’s dissertation as to why Mr Hargreaves should be sacked as the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services is because at a public event he told—in Mr Smyth’s perception—a bad joke.
I think it sums up the tenor of this particular debate that we have spent nearly two hours debating this motion on private members day. As Dr Foskey says, on private members day we debate issues around public education, and of course we know what the Liberal Party think about any consideration of public education. We are about to commence a debate in relation to climate change, and we know what the Liberal Party think about climate change. We know why the Liberal Party in this place do not want to discuss public education. They believe that it is good money after bad. We know why the Liberal Party do not want to talk about climate change. They have an absolutely appalling record in relation to climate change.
On our last sitting day, the Leader of the Opposition, having been fed the last budget papers of Gary Humphries as Chief Minister by Mr Smyth—it is almost as if Mr Smyth deliberately feeds to Mr Stefaniak material that actually will make him look like a buffoon—jumped up, without having fully read the papers that were handed to him by Mr Smyth, and said, “Yes. In our last budget when we were in government we provided $180,000 for climate change. We changed the light bulbs at Macarthur House.” That $180,000 represented the total financial commitment by the Liberal Party to their much vaunted climate change strategy. Bill Stefaniak and Brendan Smyth’s contribution to climate change, to greenhouse gas abatement, to working towards their target in their climate change strategy consists of $180,000 to change the light bulbs at Macarthur House.
Mr Gentleman: I hope they switched them off on their way out.
MR STANHOPE: That is right. They did switch the lights out as they left, and they have been out for a long time. They will be for a while to come on the basis of the strength of this performance today. It is a deliberate stunt designed to distract attention from the fact that they do not have policies, they do not want to discuss public education and they do not want to discuss climate change—they do not want to discuss anything of any substance. They stand for nothing; they mean nothing.
The only time you see any impassioned response from the Liberal Party is when they are discussing leadership—when Mr Mulcahy is discussing with his faction when he should make his move; when Mr Smyth is discussing with members of his particular faction whether or not it is time to remove Mrs Burke because of her ineptitude and place perhaps Mr Seselja in the deputy leadership as a move towards his ultimate taking over of the leadership and to thwart Mr Mulcahy’s ambition. When was the last time anybody in this place saw Mr Mulcahy and Mr Smyth speak about anything or at least speak civilly? It is a result, of course, of the long-simmering hatreds as a result of Mr Mulcahy’s quite rightful removal of Mr Smyth from the leadership as a result of his continual ineptitude.
This motion is a nonsense. In addition, of course, to the forceful points made in the debate as to why Mr Hargreaves should be asked to leave his ministry, we are told that the minister should be sacked because he told a bad joke. Actually, it was incredibly well received by the audience. I must say, too, that Dr Foskey made some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .