Page 5878 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In contrast to the treatment of the ACT by the local Labor Party, what we need through the Chief Minister is for Ms Gallagher to make the strongest possible representations about the consequences of the latest economic policy decisions which have been announced by the Gillard Labor government. Ms Gallagher must write to her federal colleagues arguing the case for the ACT. Ms Gallagher must denounce the silly decision to increase the efficiency dividend in this way because of the adverse effects that this decision will have on employment in the ACT.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (6.05): We are all enlightened by that 15-minute nonsensical rant from the shadow treasurer. Let us go to the substance of this motion. Paragraph (1)(a) has no basis in fact.
Mr Seselja: We’re not allowed to do that anymore, are we?
Mr Smyth: Point of order, Mr Speaker—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Barr, one moment, thank you. Stop the clocks.
Mr Smyth: You said this afternoon that there were going to be no more personal attacks. I do not mind, but I think it shows the hypocrisy of the minister. Can you give a ruling on what the minister has just said?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Smyth. I clearly did not articulate this clearly enough for you earlier, but let me have another go. I think a clear distinction can be made between being attacked politically and being attacked personally. Certainly in the incident this afternoon that particularly sparked my response, Mr Hanson was mocking Ms Burch in a personal way—I have just been upstairs reviewing the Hansard—whereas I felt Mr Barr’s earlier comments were about your policies and it was a political approach. I think there is a clear difference and I think members understand this. I am sure the opposition will roll their eyes at my attempt to draw this distinction, but I think there is a distinction between mocking somebody at a personal level and attacking them politically. That is the line I intend to draw.
Mrs Dunne: Right—no more “wog boy” comments from you.
MR BARR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept that is a fair cop, Mrs Dunne. And if there are any more “sissy” remarks coming back the other way I hope you will treat your colleagues in that exact same way. All right? That is the deal I will do with you here and now. Do not ever suggest what you have just suggested and think that I do not know what comes back the other way. All right? Thank you. Mr Speaker, I digress.
MR SPEAKER: Let us move on, members.
Mr Seselja: Yes, we’ll move on now.
MR BARR: Yes, we will, Zed. I think that is a good thing. We have all had our little go and we will move on. Thank you. So in relation to the matter before us—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video