Page 3240 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 18 August 2009

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


That is where the Labor Party exist on this issue. They are torn on the issue. We know that a number of members of this caucus voted for that motion. They voted for a motion that was hostile—deeply hostile—to funding of non-government schools. It actually questioned their right to any sort of funding. It claimed that they were divisive—that having funding for ethnic and religious schools was in some way divisive.

We take a different approach. We believe in their right to exist, and that is reflected in our policies. We take exception to Mr Barr’s spin on this issue—pretending to be a friend of the non-government sector when the record of this government over a number of years has been anything but. Mr Barr will find it very difficult to convince the parents of children in non-government schools that he is genuine about this. The only way he will be able to convince them that he is in any way genuine is if they start matching this latest rhetoric—this new-found love of non-government schools—with some commitment to actually support them.

We know that politically they have to give them some support, but it seems to me that they give them only the amount of support that they absolutely have to give—not a cent more, not a cent more than they can get away with politically. They know that to get rid of it completely would be politically disastrous for them, so they keep it. They put up with the non-government sector; they put up with some funding despite the fact that at least half the party believe that they should not be getting any funding. So we question sincerely their commitment. But we will see—

Mr Barr: You are telling us more about your thinking on the public system actually, Zed. I think we have just got an insight into what the Liberal Party room is like on public education.

MR SESELJA: Katy Gallagher used to refer to herself as the minister for public education, I think, but Mr Barr is now questioning our commitment to government education. As education minister, the one and only policy that he came up with in education was a copy of ours. The only policy he could come up with was a copy of the Liberal policy. We are so hostile to the government sector that our policy was seen as so good that the Labor Party had to match it. They had to match it. It was groundbreaking; it was leading. And they followed.

Our record on both the government sector and the non-government sector is strong. Unlike the ALP, we fundamentally believe in their right to exist. At least half the ALP does not. That has been reflected in policy over a number of years here in the ACT.

Before I sit down, I will also just make the point that it would have been useful if the convention in place had been followed—I can understand why he did not—and the minister had provided this ministerial statement, which is essentially what it was, ahead of time so that Mr Doszpot would have had the opportunity to look at it.

MR DOSZPOT (Brindabella) (3.56): I echo Mr Seselja’s sentiments and express my disbelief that Mr Barr has the gall to make the statements that he has just made. Minister Barr, we sat here; we stood here. You ranted and raved about issues. We kept asking you why the non-government schools were excluded from the Shaddock review. I asked you that question in April; you could not answer, apart from getting


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