Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest Liberal Party LIBERAL PARTY The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council The Hon. K.J. MAHER (15:39): I rise to speak on the need for leadership, unity and positive plans for our future. As students of economic history would know, following World War II, Allied Europe instituted the Marshall Plan to help the recovery and reconstruction of a divided, war-torn and devastated continent. That savagely divided, war-torn group, the South Australian Liberal Party, recently attempted its own Marshall plan but with far less success. The Marshall Plan in Europe was not accepted by all of Europe. The Soviets were opposed to the Marshall Plan from the start and went about doing everything they could to undermine it. We saw the exact same thing in the Liberal Party: we saw the forces gather to stop the Marshall plan. We saw the opposition and its supporters do everything they could to undermine the Liberals' Marshall plan. They were out in the media, and they were backgrounding journalists against the Marshall plan. On 22 October, The Advertiser reported a number of comments the Leader of the Opposition herself made about her challenger. The report stated: Ms Redmond said that Mr Hamilton-Smith was the only Liberal in history to have challenged three times for the leadership and claimed his personal ambition was damaging the Party. She went on to say: Whilst Martin has been painting himself as the great guru of policy, Martin is the only one of my Shadow Ministers not to have put down in writing any policies yet for the next election. Just like the Soviets following World War II, many Liberals were doing everything they could to stop the Liberal Marshall plan. In post World War II Europe, some Soviet-aligned Eastern Bloc states, such as Czechoslovakia, initially agreed to attend meetings to negotiate and participate in the Marshall Plan but ended up not attending and completely rejecting the plan altogether. The former deputy leader, the member for MacKillop, was much like Czechoslovakia. He appeared initially to be on board with the Marshall plan. This is confirmed by the fact that the member for Waite has told anyone who cares to listen in the last few weeks that the member for MacKillop was counted as one of his solid numbers, presumably in a desperate attempt to remain deputy leader. But when the Liberals' Marshall plan became clear, when the 'member for Dunstan' was clear that he was going to run for deputy leader, the member for MacKillop switched back to his original side. Just like Czechoslovakia, he showed real interest in changing sides but, when it came down to it, he did not have the conviction to stick to what he wanted to do. As for the 'member for Dunstan' himself, the actual Marshall of the Liberals' Marshall plan and now deputy leader, when he was asked in interviews immediately after the leadership who he voted for, he refused to say—he refused to say who he voted for. There is a great deal of speculation within the Liberal Party that he actually may have voted for the current leader, despite running on a ticket against her. The speculation amongst the Liberals is that the motivation for this could have been a realisation that being deputy to the current leader would give him a much quicker opportunity to ascend to Liberal leadership himself. General Marshall was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in Europe. However, the Liberals' Marshall, whose actions were far from noble, for his efforts he was not even awarded the shadow Treasury portfolio that he so coveted. Then there was a reshuffle straight after that that took weeks to decide and pleased no-one. It seems every Liberal member now has free range across all portfolios, except for one: in this chamber, the reshuffle again overlooked the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who is now the only member of the Liberal Party in this place not to have a portfolio. They could not trust the Hon. Michelle Lensink with any responsibility, so they made her second in charge up here. However, there is a fundamental difference between the Marshall Plan for Europe and the Liberals' failed Marshall plan. The Marshall Plan for Europe was about creating jobs and rebuilding the economy. None of the Liberal Party's plans, including its failed Marshall plan, has done this. The biggest plan the Liberal Party has announced so far is its plan to sack 35,000 public servants. The Liberal Party's plans are about wrecking the economy, sacking workers and reducing services. They would end up sacking tens of thousands of people, including teachers, nurses and other service providers. It is in their DNA; it is what they did last time they were in government here, and it is what they have done in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. They cannot help themselves. The only difference in the other states is that the Liberals were very sneaky and deceitful: they did not announce their plans before the election, unlike here, where they have put it out in bold writing that they are planning to sack people. The Liberal Party's failed Marshall plan and leadership instability are bad for the opposition and bad for South Australia. How can you possibly have people think you are anywhere near ready to govern the state when you are so consumed by infighting and treachery that you cannot even govern yourself? The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: And you still have 15 seconds left! The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.