Page 3200 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Of course, this is not a dilemma that is faced purely by the Speaker. It is faced by all members in this place, where we seek to reconcile our own political beliefs and objectives with the actions of those who we are supportive of, but who we perhaps believe sometimes take it a step too far. It is a balancing act for all members in this place to perform.
For that reason the government will not support this motion of no confidence today. We believe it is absolutely essential that we reaffirm the importance of all members upholding and supporting the principle of the rule of law and that all members reflect on the importance of being judicious in their comments so as not to create any perception that they support any form of unlawful protest.
I want to briefly reflect on the history of the different political parties in this place, because it has been put to me this morning that there were many instances where the Labor Party was involved in some form of unlawful protest in history. There is no doubt that party activists, community activists and union activists have engaged in unlawful actions where they have trespassed on others’ properties, for example, to make a particular political point. That is indeed the case, but the standard that is applied to a political activist or a union member is different from the standard that is applied to an elected representative, and we believe that that distinction is one that should be drawn and which regard should be had to.
Mr Speaker, in conclusion, when we view your comments in their entirety, I do not think it is fair to say that you have condoned unlawful action, but I think it is fair to say that you have created the perception that you are perhaps sympathetic to it, and that was an error. We all make errors. We all, with the ability of hindsight, perhaps wish that we had put our position somewhat differently, with a somewhat different nuance. But does this go to the heart of your capacity to perform your duties as Speaker? In the government’s mind, no it does not. You have continued to demonstrate your ability to properly administer the affairs of this Assembly, to adjudicate fairly and impartially in the chamber during the course of debate and to represent the Assembly in the broader community.
For those reasons, the government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s motion today and instead propose the amendment in the form circulated.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (10.25): The Greens will not be supporting the motion today, because it is baseless and it ignores the position the Speaker has clearly enunciated. In fact, it is incorrect in its understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of a modern and vibrant democracy.
The first point to make, and perhaps the most important, is that despite what Mr Seselja tried to suggest, how he tried to twist things, the Speaker has been absolutely clear in his position, a position that supports the rule of law. To suggest otherwise is fanciful and reflects Mr Seselja’s political agenda rather than something the Speaker has actually said.
I would like to be clear that this is also the position of the Greens, and this is spelled out clearly in our policies, which right up front indicate that the rule of law is fundamental to a democratic society.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video