Page 4687 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
who do not care about people, and the parties on the left, the progressive parties, are the parties who care about the vulnerable in our community. If that left-right paradigm was ever thought to be correct, it has now been proved by Mr Barr, by his performance, to be absolutely and utterly incorrect. In the last term of this Assembly, who has consistently stood up for the disadvantaged and disabled people in the ACT community? It has been the Canberra Liberals, in the face of opposition from the government and, I am sorry to say, from the Greens, as can be seen by the amendment which has been circulated here today. It is a disgraceful proposal.
It is useful to contemplate some of the words that Mr Barr used in this debate recently. Yesterday in question time, under pressure, he said:
… it is the classic hypocritical stance of the Canberra Liberals for them to be arguing simultaneously for a return to surplus and then specifically opposing every sensible—
and I repeat the word “sensible”—
measure, through efficiency dividends and our budget plans, to return this budget to surplus.
I would rather be hypocritical than be as progressive and such an economic rationalist as Mr Barr over here—be prepared to cut funding to deaf and blind children in our education system.
Mr Barr went on to say that the government would not be deterred by the Canberra Liberals’ policy indifference. The Canberra Liberals’ policy is fair and square in support of the people in the ACT education system who are deaf and blind and in support of their parents and the teachers who do a fantastic job to support those children.
We will not be supporting cuts of the sort proposed by this economic rationalist minister. He is the sort of person who gives economic rationalists a bad name. Economic rationalists are people who look at the whole issue and say, “If we cut here or make changes here, what are the impacts; what are the flow-on effects?” They play the tape through to the end and they realise that if they cut here they will shift costs somewhere else. They do not say, “I will make my changes and I do not care about the impact that that will have on disability services elsewhere.” That is shown by the fact that this minister could not walk down the corridor and talk to his ministerial colleague who had responsibility for disability services.
But yesterday Mr Barr went further. He said:
We will not be deterred by the petty squabblings of those opposite … their inability to embrace any form of microeconomic reform.
And he talked about it again today. If this is micro-economic reform, I do not think that we should be opposed to it.
Mr Barr: Efficient delivery of government services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video