Page 4194 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some schools, but we might have a process that everybody is involved in and people can own, because it is going to take a long time to repair the damage that has been done by this government.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (4.02): Apparently, the Liberal Party and the Greens believe that this censure motion should be carried. I must say that I do find it remarkable in the context of the grave concern expressed in relation to Dr Foskey’s behaviour yesterday and the case which she opposed then in relation to herself and which she now supports in relation to Mr Barr. That does put in stark contrast her particular values in relation to levels of offence. I must say that, having listened to that speech and that particular level of justification, I think we made a wrong decision yesterday in having such a watered down motion in relation to Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: It is personal, isn’t it? It is so personal.
MR STANHOPE: A censure motion is pretty personal, Dr Foskey. You have just said that you are going to censure Mr Barr. You did not give a single reason, other than that you disagree with him. You just said that you disagree with him. You disagree with him on a policy position. Your justification for agreeing to a censure motion against Mr Barr is that you disagree with his policy. You disagree with his policy on schools and on education: “I disagree with you. Therefore, I am going to formally move to censure you.” That is his sin. We know you do not really believe it.
Mr Stefaniak and other members of the Liberal Party have just given their alleged justification, but we know explicitly what the Liberal Party thinks. We know explicitly what the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Stefaniak, thinks, because he told us in 1990. We know what Mr Stefaniak truly believes about this issue, because he told us when he was in government and Mr Humphries was the Minister for Education and Mr Humphries was faced with closing seven schools. Mr Humphries, as Minister for Education, was faced with the decision of his government in 1990 to close seven schools.
What did Mr Stefaniak think of that particular decision as long ago as 1990? Interestingly, we are still debating the closure of some of the same schools. This is what Mr Stefaniak thought of the proposal to close those seven schools in 1990, when it was his government and his colleague as Minister for Education who were faced with the decision. This is what Mr Stefaniak truly believes in relation to school closures. This is Mr Stefaniak verbatim:
I also want to talk about a few points about our school system and about the school closures … the neighbourhood system has changed a fair bit in recent times—
Mrs Dunne: I take a point of order. This would be the sixth or seventh time that the Chief Minister has read this particular thing to the Assembly. Would that be classified under standing order 62 as tedious repetition?
MR SPEAKER: No, Mrs Dunne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .