Page 4283 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Hunter: It was that Mr Doszpot said that he was standing to speak to my amendment, and he has not addressed my amendment. I would be pleased for him to address my amendment.
MR SPEAKER: Certainly. Mr Doszpot, you have the floor.
MR DOSZPOT: At the outset of my response, Ms Hunter, I made reference to something about finding your amendment disappointing. If I have not said it, I will say it: I do find it very disappointing and quite incredible that you should move such an amendment that, instead of clarifying the issues that are so contradictory between the interpretations of the Human Rights Act and the ACT Education Act, would add further confusion. That just highlights how statutes can and do need to gauge the spirit of the law. The amendment by you, Ms Hunter, is simply another example of the third-party insurance that your party provides not to the community, as was promised at the last election—
Ms Hunter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am just not getting this.
MR SPEAKER: I am sorry; stop the clock.
Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is still around addressing the substance of the amendment.
MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Ms Hunter. It is close to being vexatious. Mr Doszpot is speaking directly to your amendment. There is no point of order. Mr Doszpot, you have the floor.
MR DOSZPOT: I will repeat for you, Ms Hunter, if you missed it, that I am obviously not backing your amendment. I am saying it is another example of the contradictory nature of what you have said. You are actually endorsing the government’s actions in obfuscation on this policy of this Education Act issue which is causing a lot of issues within our community. What we are trying to do is address that. We are trying to get some clarification. You are, by your amendment, adding another area of confusion to it. I am obviously not supporting your amendment, but I will make that even clearer, if that is what you want.
To come back to what I was saying about the third-party insurance that your party provides—or said that you would provide at the last election—again, you have just proven that you are third-party insurance, but you are providing it to this minister and to this government through actions that we certainly do not condone. Our motion, which is simply calling on the minister to back the principal—in this case, the principal of Lanyon—is exactly what we are after. That is all we are asking, but you find that too hard to contemplate.
To come back to Mr Barr, you have highlighted clearly your lack of direction, leadership and support of and for the ACT principals. By your actions today, you have set a rather dubious benchmark. You agree with the autonomy of principals, Mr Barr, but only when it suits you. You are a fraud, minister. This is the context of today’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video