Page 1952 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
supported by the Liberal opposition, had been implemented? The Liberal opposition has come into this place today with this motion, the same old Brendan Smyth motion that you get every year after every budget, because he has not had a new idea since about 1998, and he certainly has not agreed with anything. He has had nothing positive to say in relation to ACT government activity since about 1998. This man personifies opposition for opposition’s sake. That is all he is about. His colleagues know that. They have seen the polling on him. They know how appallingly this man rates with the Canberra community. They know why he is the biggest loser in this Assembly.
The person who has lost more elections, who has been involved in more election defeats for the Liberal Party, the individual who is singularly responsible for the fact that the Liberal Party have been sitting on that side of the chamber for so long—
Mr Smyth: Singularly responsible?
MR BARR: Well, according to boy wonder, the apprentice, he was responsible for a massive comeback in the last election. He did deliver the Liberal Party’s worst votes in at least two of the ACT’s electorates, but apparently that was all restoring the Liberal Party’s position, in response to the position that Mr Smyth left the Liberal Party in.
Once again this morning, we have this same old Brendan Smyth claptrap, the same old tired, boring rhetoric, in relation to lacking vision. Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja, tomorrow afternoon at 3 o’clock, your challenge is to outline your alternative vision. If you believe the budget should be brought back to surplus at an earlier date than the government’s plan then let us hear how you intend to do it and your way forward. You have got your chance tomorrow afternoon. Let us see whether you have actually got some substance behind the usual tardy, tired and ineffective rhetoric that we hear.
In terms of today’s motion, it is pleasing that the leader of the Greens has indicated that the sort of tired, emotional claptrap that we hear from the shadow treasurer will not be supported. The amendment that Ms Hunter has moved is a good one. The government clearly will support that amendment in preference to Mr Smyth’s motion.
I will go to the detail of Mr Smyth’s contribution because it again highlights the abject failure of the Liberal Party to be able to embrace any reform of government service delivery—any reform at all. We have them eagerly participating in an Assembly inquiry looking back on the reforms of 2006 that they opposed. There is no recognition at all of the significant improvements in quality in education, for example, just in one portfolio area, as a result of the changes that occurred in 2006. There is no recognition of that.
It goes to the heart of their fundamental inability to address difficult issues. They are all for the cheap shot. All of their shadow ministers are out peddling media releases saying that more money should be spent in each of their portfolio areas, yet they try and create this bit of insulation around the leader and the deputy leader, their dynamic duo economic team, the two superheroes who in fact have a view that is entirely at odds—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .