Page 3213 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
immense privilege that comes with sitting in that chair there. And you have decided to do that. When you went from that chair to the Speaker’s chair, there was a requirement for you to change your actions, not your beliefs but your actions, and your behaviour, because you accepted the highest office in this jurisdiction, that of the Speaker. In doing so, there were responsibilities.
By your actions, by your actions today and by your actions since Greenpeace conducted their crime, you have failed in your responsibility as the Speaker and you have failed in your responsibility to this Assembly, Mr Speaker. And that is the argument. That is the point. So some esoteric debate about Martin Luther King and what is appropriate action for people to take is not the issue. The issue here is your responsibilities, your role, your behaviour as the Speaker.
It is quite clear, based on the speeches that have been made and evidence that has been provided not only by us but also by Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher, that the way that you have behaved has brought disrepute and has reduced the dignity and the authority of the role of Speaker. And it is quite untenable, whilst you continue to condone Greenpeace’s action, while you continue to say that you are going to pick and choose which laws you are going to say are okay to break and which are not okay to break, and it is impossible for you to continue on in the Speaker’s role.
I turn to the government. I am very disappointed that you have not supported our motion today. There are times in this place when we do things which are politically motivated. This is not one of them. And Mr Seselja has made that very clear. The role of Speaker, if this motion were successful today—and I believe we should discuss it further—would not be going to a member of the opposition but to a member of the government. We actually have more to lose than to gain if this motion is successful today.
But this is a matter of principle. This is a matter of democratic principle. This is a matter of doing what is right by this Assembly. As members of this Assembly, we should put that before our own political convenience. And that is what we are doing. Let me make it very clear that if Mr Rattenbury is no longer Speaker, we understand that it will be Mr Hargreaves or Ms Porter or one of the other members of the government. So we have much to lose by this motion getting up and nothing to gain.
It is, I think, a turning point or a watershed moment for members on that side of the house, members of the government, that they are prepared to say, “Although we understand the arguments, although we believe in the arguments”—and Mr Corbell has made that clear, and so has Ms Gallagher—“and we understand what you are saying, we are not prepared to do anything about it.” And I know that Mr Hargreaves has written words on this. He has had a paper published on this issue actually before Mr Rattenbury went to this latest extreme.
I think members of the government would understand that Mr Rattenbury’s position and his beliefs in his actions have now eroded the authority of the Speaker. But they are not prepared to do anything about it. I think it is very disappointing that the government is, in essence, putting its political expediency, for whatever reason, in front of the democratic principles and the responsibility that we all have as members of this Assembly to make sure that our first obligation is to make sure that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video