Page 3197 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Just when the rule of law needs to be supported, it will be undermined by a person who is not just a law-maker but the person required to set the laws for the law-makers. This is the second reason this position is so utterly insupportable: this is not just a member of this Assembly; it is the Speaker himself. It is untenable for a law-maker to be an advocate for unlawful behaviour, but it is even more untenable for the Speaker of a parliament to do so. The Speaker holds a particular role in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the legitimacy of the Assembly. The role has been noted as being “representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity”. It is hard to find precedents for Speakers being censured for their lack of respect for the law, let alone for the open encouragement of law breaking, because such a position is obviously and deeply contradictory to continuance in that role. Shane Rattenbury is not just an errant backbencher. He holds a particular role in a particular place to maintain respect for the Assembly and the law. His decision to endorse illegal destruction is completely incompatible with that role.
Shane Rattenbury has already raised more than the usual proportion of conflicts of interest, but this one goes right to the heart of his position as both a law-maker and the Speaker. The CSIRO action was carried out by Greenpeace, openly admitted. Mr Rattenbury is not just an ex-member of Greenpeace; he is a current member of Greenpeace giving support to activities, both legal and illegal.
Reason 4 is that the office is compromised by confusion of roles. One of the problems that have come up repeatedly, and which we believe have diminished the role of Speaker, is Shane Rattenbury’s confusion over his role. Sometimes he is a player; sometimes he is an umpire. Sometimes he is an observer; sometimes he is an advocate. Sometimes he is counting up the interjections and sending members letters; at other times he is in the chair catcalling with the best of them. Confusion and conflict are both added to contempt of the law for this Speaker.
Our role as law-makers is to advocate for the laws we want changed, respect the verdict of the Assembly and encourage those agitating for change to use legitimate means rather than engage in destruction and intimidation. As law-makers, we do not get to choose which laws should be respected. We do get the opportunity and responsibility to encourage peaceful, lawful means to create change.
The silence of the Greens’ leadership is also deeply concerning. Ms Hunter has been silent on the issue, which suggests either that this endorsement of illegal behaviours is now Greens policy or that Ms Hunter has no control over her parliamentary colleagues. This is deeply worrying for a party that holds the balance of power in the Assembly.
Mr Rattenbury has claimed that he must endorse the illegal destruction of property because to do otherwise would amount to hypocrisy on his part. I contend that endorsing property destruction and illegal protests, yet continuing to sit as the Speaker of the territory’s law-making body, is equally hypocritical, equally vacuous and completely indefensible.
In case I am accused of party-politicking in this debate, let me say that I would accept another person in this role even if it is not our preferred candidate. I would accept
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video