Page 1755 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
under Whitlam, due to electoral realities, came around to the idea that maybe there should be some funding. But that hostility is still there.
We can go back and we can look at what the ACT Labor Party’s position is. We know that about 50 per cent of the ACT Labor Party, whether it is the caucus or whether it is the broader party, believe that non-government schools should get no funding. Half of the Labor Party, including half the caucus—including ministers like Katy Gallagher and Simon Corbell—voted for a motion that would have denied any funding to non-government schools and that actually attacked all non-government schools, whether they be Muslim schools, Catholic schools or Anglican schools. Whatever the school, if they were non-government, that motion attacked them.
So let us just be clear on where the Labor Party stands on non-government schools and the Catholic sector. They pay lip-service to them from time to time, but they are against them. They do not support them. They do not support that sector. They are hostile to that sector and it comes through. It is coming through again today, unfortunately. Unfortunately—
Mr Hanson: Which way did Simon Corbell vote?
MR SESELJA: Mr Corbell, of course, is anti the Catholic sector. He voted against the motion. The whole left of the Labor Party here voted for that condemning motion of non-government schools—all non-government schools. Whatever their background—whether they be religious schools or whether they be ethnic schools—they were written off as being divisive. We do not believe they are divisive.
What we are arguing here for today is that we simply stand up to the federal government and say, “Don’t take away their funding.” We are not saying, “Give them a whole stack more cash.” That would, of course, be welcome, but we are saying as a baseline that surely we can agree that they should be able to have their funding maintained in real terms. That is what the Canberra Liberals believe.
Mr Barr: That’s what the Prime Minister said from the start.
MR SESELJA: Well, no. We are hearing very different messages. If that is what the Prime Minister said, and if the minister was confident that was going to be the case, he would have no trouble supporting the words of this motion. But the Labor Party and the Greens have today chosen to oppose a motion that would simply call for Catholic schools in the ACT not to be defunded. We have a clear divide here, don’t we, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have a clear divide because the Canberra Liberals say, “Yes, we will push for the federal government; we should lobby to protect schools here in Canberra, just as we would lobby to protect government schools in Canberra if they were facing cuts from the commonwealth.”
Mr Barr: Why won’t you support my amendment then?
MR SESELJA: There are weasel words across the chamber from Andrew Barr. He has walked away from the sector again. I would say to all those Catholic schools, “When he comes to your school this week or next week or another time, ask him why
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video