Page 3120 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

a lot of independent schools and others that have blazers. I do not think that using that terminology helps in breaking down barriers and, indeed, in moving beyond the battle between public and private schools. I think that kind of terminology, that Lathamesque-type terminology, does not really get us anywhere, the constant class warfare crap. I think it would have been—

Mr Barr: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I think he should withdraw.

MR SESELJA: I withdraw “crap”.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: You will have to go back and withdraw a few other “craps” tonight, I think.

MR SESELJA: This is the class warfare rubbish that they persist with. That is what blazer school is about; it is not just about choosing a couple of high-fee schools because we do have only a very small number of high-fee schools in Canberra. The vast majority of non-government schools are at the low and medium-fee end. But it is the attitude. It is demonstrated in all that they do, I think, towards non-government schools. We still have very low levels of funding for non-government schools.

There are a couple of quick issues in the very short time I have. Smaller classes: we are glad that the minister has come on board with that policy direction that we set last year—

Mr Smyth: Dragged kicking and screaming.

MR SESELJA: Yes, he is dragged kicking and screaming. The averages, I think, are problematic.

There is concern about the almost ideological opposition to CCTV cameras. If there is a case for them, I think they should be looked at on merit rather than rejected on ideological grounds. That seems to be what is going on at the moment.

I would simply note that, with this gagging of debate that we have had, whilst the minister did take more than his 10 minutes, we have had only five minutes from the Greens on education. I do not know whether that was the rationale for shortening the debate, but five minutes on such an important policy area, such a large part of the budget, I think, is indicative of a party that is not ready to come and scrutinise this budget and scrutinise the really important aspects of it.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The time for debate on this proposed expenditure has expired.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proposed expenditure—Part 1.17—ACT Planning and Land Authority, $42,164,000 (net cost of outputs) and $4,509,000 (capital injection), totalling $46,673,000.

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (12.23 am): I would like to start my comments on ACTPLA by talking about development applications. We are very pleased to see the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .