Page 4197 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak thinks. We know what Mr Humphries thinks because they said it; it is there in print.
Mr Stefaniak, in relation to the Hackett school closure, was quoted as making some interesting remarks in September 1991 about his policy now of reopening schools. Speaking of the Hackett school, he said, “I really query the benefit not only to the Hackett community but to the kids themselves of a very small junior primary school on this site.” Mr Stefaniak went on to insist that the school not be maintained as a school, but that it be converted into a sports facility on the basis that there was absolutely no benefit in maintaining it as a school, neither for the community nor for the kids themselves, because of the size of the school. That is what Mr Stefaniak really believes, and he knows that this motion is an absolute nonsense because he knows that he does not believe a single word of it. (Time expired.)
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (4.12): Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note what the views of the Labor Party caucus are on this issue.
Mrs Dunne: How many of them voted for it?
MR SESELJA: I believe it was a majority of the Labor caucus—five out of nine—who voted at their Labor Party conference to stop the school closures. I believe, Mr Berry, you were one of them. I believe Mr Gentleman was one of them. I believe Ms MacDonald was one of them. I believe that two of the ministers, Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher, were two of them. So five of the nine Labor Party caucus were not supporting this decision in their hearts, not supporting this decision in their party and not supporting this decision when they were called upon to vote at the Labor Party conference. But, of course, they lost the courage, once they came into the Assembly, to go through with what they believed, what their factions believed, and so we know there have been significant contradictions on the part of many of our Labor members.
It is interesting that the first paragraph of the motion of censure talks about Mr Barr having “presided over the wholesale breaking of its commitments to the Canberra electorate when it promised no schools would close in the life of this Assembly”.
Mr Gentleman: It does not say “the government”; it says “its”. Who is “its”?
Mr Stanhope: It is a complete nonsense.
MR SESELJA: Okay. Thank you. Mr Gentleman is doing well there. So what it is saying in the—
Mr Stanhope: Whoever wrote it obviously did not go to a government school.
MR SESELJA: Well, thanks for the aspersion on non-government schools there. We know what the Labor Party think of non-government schools. They do not think they should be funded at all. I think that was the vote of many members of this caucus as well.
But we will go into this: “the breaking of its commitments to the Canberra electorate”. Mr Barr took some issue with this when it was raised today by Mr Stefaniak in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .