Page 138 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
when compared to other jurisdictions, to more efficiently use our public school buildings. That was a controversial process—interestingly, it was opposed by the Canberra Liberals, most particularly, but equally by the ACT Greens—to see the more efficient use of public school infrastructure. It has enabled us to have the capacity to reinvest in our public school infrastructure to the tune of over half a billion dollars now. When combined with the commonwealth government’s investment, it is the single largest investment in public education in the history of this territory—investing in infrastructure which was being poorly utilised. It is important that we acknowledge the change that has occurred.
There are other tables contained within the detail of the Productivity Commission report that ably demonstrate how we have been able to more efficiently utilise our public school resources. That is important too, because, whilst we want to invest more in our education system—and we do invest more than any other comparable jurisdiction in this country; it is a policy badge that we wear with pride—we also need to do it efficiently.
For the Liberal Party to come into this place this morning and lecture the government on productivity measures and efficiency measures is just laughable—laughable. They stand condemned on their record of opposing every significant microeconomic reform that this government has sought to undertake. Every single significant piece of microeconomic reform that this government has sought to implement has been opposed by the Canberra Liberals—every single point.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what does that lead you to conclude? It is time for a bit more analysis of how the ACT compares with other jurisdictions. I think it is fair to say that we have the worst shadow economics team in Australia here in the ACT. I have been constructing a simplistic league table in relation to shadow economics teams in this country. I am sure the Greens will understand that I have constructed this and will acknowledge that I have put it together. In that simplistic league table, I am afraid, the ACT Liberals have moved from last to second last as a result of a dynamic new shadow economics team that has emerged in a place not too far from here. On a simplistic league table, on raw scores, Abbott, Hockey and Barnaby Joyce would have to be the worst shadow economics team in this country. However, being a fair man, I believe it is appropriate to adjust for an index of community socioeconomic advantage in this instance. We have got to adjust for the Queensland National Party. On that basis, the clear winners in the national league table of worst shadow economics spokespeople are Seselja and Smyth. Seselja and Smyth win.
Let us look at another simplistic league table, productivity measures. In this instance we will create a little league table of our own across the chamber. I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the Chief Minister has alluded to this, that Mr Coe would probably head the productivity table within the ACT Liberal Party. Clearly he has demonstrated the greatest capacity for hard work. He does not always get it right, but at least he gets in and has a go.
Mr Stanhope: He gets out of bed in the morning.
MR BARR: He does get out of bed in the morning. Second to Mr Coe in the productivity league table on the Liberal Party is Mr Hanson. I will give him credit. He
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video