Page 2868 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
week ago when I picked up the Canberra Times that I read the Greens had decided to go it alone.
Ms Bresnan: No.
MR STANHOPE: These are the facts, Amanda.
Ms Bresnan: We called your office and—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Ms Bresnan, please. I have shouted at them. It will be your turn shortly.
MR STANHOPE: We took on face value what Shane Rattenbury had said. We thought there would be a cognate debate and all of our actions have proceeded on that basis. That is what we thought. So there was a misunderstanding. We accepted what we believed we understood the Greens had proposed. And it is there in Shane Rattenbury’s press release. To clear up that confusion, Ms Bresnan, that is what we thought. Do not attribute to me notions around non-engagement when we were relying on and responding to a written set of undertakings or commitments by Mr Rattenbury in relation to this issue. That is what we thought was going to happen.
Ms Bresnan: You knew perfectly well what was going on.
MR STANHOPE: We knew perfectly well? We thought we knew perfectly well. We thought Mr Rattenbury’s words were quite clear and explicit, that the Greens would await the outcome. The consultation only concluded last week. That is what we thought, anyway. Let me just say, “Okay, let us accept there was confusion.” I will accept that. But just give us the grace and the credit of saying that is what we thought was going to happen.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.19): I think it is worth saying a couple of words about how Mr Stanhope and the Labor Party have managed to get to this point. We have heard a lot of squealing from Mr Stanhope this week, a lot of jumping up and down and claiming some high moral ground, but fundamentally what this is about is that Jon Stanhope does not agree with not just this legislation but any legislation on this topic.
He does not fundamentally support the idea that we should actually be implementing random roadside drug testing. He said it back in 2005. He called it redneck legislation. And he has now had six months to input to this process. He has had six months, from when Mr Hanson first introduced his legislation, to engage in good faith on this issue. But he has not, because he does not believe in it.
When he got wrong-footed by the fact that the Greens actually do support this legislation and do support this type of legislation, he scrambled around to try to block it. That is what he has been doing. That is what this week has been about. It has been about Mr Stanhope saying, “I am going to try to find a way to scuttle this legislation.” Rather than suggesting amendments, rather than suggesting improvements, he has tried to scuttle it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video