Page 540 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Perhaps they are not worried about history. Is it, then, that they are worried about the commonwealth providing another $130 million to government primary schools? Does the Liberal Party understand the implications of $130 million for the education of children here in the territory? Mr Seselja is on the record as opposing this package, opposing an additional $130 million of funding for the government primary school sector. Remarkably, having regard to the Liberal Party’s attitude to the non-government sector, the Liberal Party stands up today and says, “It is a matter of no real concern to us if that $80 million does not go to the non-government sector, the Catholic systemic schools. They do not need this $80 million injection.”
Mr Hargreaves: It is good money after bad, remember.
MR STANHOPE: That is right. It is part of the continuing philosophy, the Dunne mantra. This is, in the view of the Liberal Party, throwing good money after bad. It was the mantra of Mrs Dunne in her period as education spokesperson for the Liberals. She only asked two questions in four years; nevertheless it was their mantra on other occasions.
One is entitled to ask: is it that the Liberal Party do not support the $100 million for public housing? We know their history, their philosophy, their ideology. We know that there is no sensitivity within the Liberal Party towards those Canberrans that live in public or supported accommodation or social housing. They are not their constituents; they do not care. They flip-flop.
On the day of the announcement Mr Seselja heard his federal leader say that the Liberal Party would oppose the package. Flip-flop Zed said, “I had better oppose this because Malcolm Turnbull has.” Zed fell into step—lockstep—with Malcolm Turnbull. That was the initial position. Then, of course, they moved off and he thought, “Maybe this is not such a good political position. Perhaps I’d better start to climb out of this little ditch that I have dug for myself.”
Mr Seselja: You cannot tell the truth, can you, Jon? When you don’t have an argument you just make it up.
MR STANHOPE: So you are opposed to the Malcolm Turnbull position on this? Here is a revelation. The Leader of the ACT Branch of the Liberal Party does not support Malcolm Turnbull’s opposition to this package. That was the opening position. Then he moved away from that. He thought, “Crikey, the politics of this perhaps are not too hot. Perhaps I had better abandon Malcolm after all, but I will not do it very publicly. I do not want to upset him.”
So here we have it—flip-flop, flip-flop. On day one the position was: this is a bad package; it should not be supported. A couple of days later it was: heck, what will the Catholic Education Office think about the fact that I have opposed $80 million of commonwealth funding coming to them?
Mr Seselja: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have listened for nine minutes as the Chief Minister has made unsubstantiated comments. We will check the Hansard, but I think he is going to have to withdraw in a moment. He has said a number of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .