Page 2118 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (10.50): I reject this motion today in its entirety. This motion is unfounded and is nothing more than a cheap political stunt designed to highlight an issue the Liberals think gives them credit but which does them no credit at all. It does them no credit because they have no position on the issue of school closures in this community. They know that rationalisation of schools is necessary to maintain quality public education in this city. They know because there are former ministers for education sitting on those benches over there who argue and have argued for school closures in the past. They know it and we know it, and they do their community a great disservice to suggest that they believe otherwise.
How I vote in an internal party forum, within a democratic political party, is a matter for me and a matter for me alone. I attend Labor Party meetings every day of the week. I get asked questions, I give speeches and I get to vote on motions. That is my right as a citizen to participate in my political party, and that is what I do. But when I perform the role of a minister, when I am asked to comment on matters as a minister, when I make announcements as a minister, when I represent the territory as a minister, when I go to public meetings as a minister, one cannot find an instance where I have not put forward, advocated, supported and voted for government policy. It is that simple.
But what the Liberal Party is trying to assert today is that as a citizen, as a rank and file member of the Australian Labor Party, I should be somehow constrained in how I behave within my party. I reject that. I am entitled as a member of the great organisation that it is, the most democratic political party in this country, to participate as a member of that party separate from and different from my role as a minister. Those opposite do the same thing every day of the week. We all do it. Dr Foskey does it. We all participate in our political parties. We have our view, and the great thing about political parties is that you are just another member. I am not a minister when I go to the Labor Party conference. At the end of the day, I have one vote, like every other member of my party. I can exercise that vote in a democratic way, and that is what I do. But I do not walk away from government policy. I do not disagree with government policy publicly and that remains my position.
I put it very clearly on the record now: the government’s policy on school closures, on school rationalisation and on investing $90 million into our public education system is the right policy. It is the right policy for our city and for our community. Let us get into some of the detail about what that motion says. Did that motion reject school closures? Did that motion say that school closures were wrong? Did that motion say that schools should not be closed? The answer to all of those questions is no, it did not. The contentious element of the motion was the period for consultation and decision before closures could occur. That was the contentious part of the motion. At no point did the motion say that school closures should not or could not occur. Anyone who suggests otherwise does not know what they are talking about and is misrepresenting the position. I would argue it shows a lack of integrity if they do so.
The other part of Mr Stefaniak’s motion deals with a motion that he claims I voted on in relation to superannuation. He is wrong—again. This shows the problem when Mr Stefaniak seeks to purport that he knows what goes on in ALP annual conferences and forums, which I can assure him he is not invited to. He asserts that I voted in favour
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .