Page 3202 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Seselja has been very quick to come in and say that he believed I should be reining in one of my members. I was fascinated to go back and do the research around Mr Pratt and to find that, as party leader, Mr Seselja said nothing. Yet all of these actions would be considered by many to be a form of peaceful civil disobedience, such as Mr Pratt’s involvement in property destruction. They could also be considered unlawful.
This does not mean that peaceful protest does not have a legitimate role in our society. Of course, the rule of law must be upheld. Those who break the law will be dealt with by the law. The Greens have never disputed this, nor has the Speaker, which is why today’s motion is a misuse of the Assembly’s time. The Speaker has been unequivocal in his position, a position that is supported by both history and political theory.
As a party committed to peace and non-violence, the Greens are also committed to dissent being peaceful. Protest or dissent should be non-violent. It should not put life in danger, nor put fear into people. We believe that violence is never a forward step along the road to building positive social change.
The debate will always be subjective. The assessment of what is acceptable and unacceptable dissent in our community will always be subjective. Some people agree with trespass or blockading their properties if it is in the name of defending their land. Some people will want to chain themselves to bulldozers to defend their patch. Some will put themselves in front of harpoons to prevent whaling.
That is where the subjectivity comes into it. It seems that, at different times on different issues, people will have varying views on the legitimacy of those actions. And that debate is fair enough. Once again, it is a legitimate and healthy part of our democracy. But that does not change the central point that in a modern, vibrant democracy there is space for dissent.
As members, as people whose jobs it is to defend that democracy, surely we can be mature enough not to feel threatened by that dissent. Yes, we will also put the mechanisms in place to ensure that the rule of law prevails. We will uphold the rule of law. But we should also be open to the dissent, open to the idea that the community is demanding change from us and open to people expressing that in different ways.
This motion cannot be supported for two reasons. The first is for the reasons that I have spelled out—that there is a legitimate place for dissent in our society and that civil disobedience and the rule of law can stand side by side.
The second reason is that the Speaker has been clear in his position. He is committed to the rule of law. He has been unequivocal in stating his position that those who break the law should and will face the consequences. Mr Seselja may disagree with that analysis or he may twist it to try and be something it is not. But in the end we can only judge the Speaker on his own stated words. I am confident that the Speaker is committed to the rule of law. Anyone who has read his comments knows that this is the case.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.33): Once again it is disturbing that we on this side of the chamber have to be addressing issues which are not core business for the people in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video