Page 3194 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Canberra Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury this morning condoned the action on ABC Radio, citing Greenpeace’s long-held opposition to GM crops, and saying that sometimes the end justified the means.
The exchange on ABC that morning included the following:
Ross: But this is potentially breaking the law, they’ve destroyed someone else’s property. That’s breaking the law, surely?
Shane: Well I think Greenpeace has got a track record of at times breaking the law to draw attention to what might be a greater injustice or a greater problem …
Ross: And that’s ok?
Shane: Well, as you know Ross, I used to work for Greenpeace and I’ve certainly been involved in actions in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be greater issues.
There we have it: the words from a person elected to this body to make the law encouraging others in the community to break the law. Extraordinarily, Shane Rattenbury did not realise the error he had made, the conflict he had created regarding his private beliefs and his public duty. Others did, myself included. Michael Moore, a previous independent member, correctly identified the flaw immediately. In the article “Greens thumb nose at the law” Mr Moore writes:
THE Greens have really stuffed up! Just when it was looking like they were taking their role in the Assembly seriously and making sensible decisions, they demonstrate ignorance of political priorities.
He continues:
The Greens sit in the Assembly entrusted with the balance of power by the Canberra community to make laws that they expect us to obey. They are not in a position to condone any form of breaking the law—even if they privately agree with the objective.
The ACT Speaker, Shane Rattenbury, is no longer an activist in a Zodiac putting himself between a harpoonist and whales. His priorities were simply wrong when he refused to condemn the illegal action of Greenpeace activists who destroyed the CSIRO’s scientific research project.
Mr Moore further writes:
The other part of the Speaker’s dilemma is that a higher priority, particularly for a member of parliament, is the rule of law. The Greens should be demonstrating to the community that they understand the priority of the rule of law for the maintenance of a democratic and civilised society.
The Greens are an integral part of making our laws. There are many people in the community who find Greens-initiated legislation an anathema to their own
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video