Page 967 - Week 03 - Thursday, 19 March 2015

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

Mr Doszpot: What was the language?

MS BURCH: I think it was “bloody hell”.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Dr Bourke): Stop the clocks. Ms Burch, resume your seat. Mr Doszpot, would you withdraw?

Mr Doszpot: I withdraw. “Bloody hell” is a—

MS BURCH: You stand when you are talking to the Assistant Speaker, I believe.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Ms Burch, thank you.

Mr Doszpot: Mr Assistant Speaker, I withdraw “bloody hell”.

MS BURCH: It is the tone of conversation you get from those opposite.

Mr Smyth referred to the University of Canberra—indeed, the vice-chancellor there. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times headed “Christopher Pyne should go as Education Minister, suggests University of Canberra’s Stephen Parker.” It is an interesting read in the Canberra Times. It states:

University of Canberra vice-chancellor Stephen Parker says a new federal education minister may be needed if the government wants to reform higher education.

Education minister Christopher Pyne has suffered two Senate rebuffs to his planned attempts to deregulate university fees.

According to the article, he went on to say:

… there was now a “case for change in minister” given the acrimonious handling of the deregulation issue.

Professor Parker is well and truly on the public record as not supporting those moves—and nor, does it seem, is the federal government, through the Senate. He is a representative of the people of this nation and, indeed, the ACT. The article goes on to state:

Earlier this month, Mr Pyne angered cabinet by threatening to slash science research funding and jobs if the Senate blocked his legislation.

That is the tone of the federal Liberal Party, and it is reflected in the tone of the conversation that has come from those opposite this afternoon. The Canberra Times says:

But on Monday he split his threat to cut research funding from the regulation legislation in a last-ditch attempt to get it through the Senate.

Professor Parker said at that time that “two half-sized objectionable bills are no different from one large one in my view.”

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