Page 3219 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So, with that tradition and status, we have disappointingly discovered in the past couple of months that our Speaker is neither authoritative nor impartial. He has the power in this place to discipline members who break the procedures of the chamber, but outside this place he supports law breakers. I repeat: he supports law breakers. And, even worse, he represents scientific Luddites. He seems to have forgotten that the role of Speaker brings with it a great deal of responsibility and leadership.
Ms Hunter, the leader of the Greens, also seems to have forgotten, or chooses to ignore, the role and responsibility of her fellow Greens in the Legislative Assembly and, indeed, the additional responsibility of the role of the Speaker. All of us in this place have a duty to be role models for and to the community. We are legislators. We are relied upon to bring intelligent and considered thought to the deliberations and pronouncements we make. So when we have a Speaker that supports law breakers, what does that say to our community? We have as our representative someone who thinks it is perfectly acceptable to trespass, to damage property and, worse, to brag about it and promote their actions as noble deeds. What sort of signal does that send to our young people? What would the students at Mr Rattenbury’s former school think of his civil disobedience support?
Mr Rattenbury, what were you thinking? You supported people that have trespassed, that have damaged property, that have threatened scientific endeavour, and all based on some stupid and ignorant notion that wheat being grown was a threat to future civilisations when it was designed to help feed future civilisations. Have you not supported the warnings about global food shortages without significant advances in production and protein? Mr Rattenbury, you no longer work for Greenpeace. You have forsaken that former career to become a legislator, and that brings with it responsibility—responsibility to obey the law.
The final ignorance of responsibility to obey the law comes from the Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, and his government amendment that states:
“(1) expresses its ongoing confidence in the capacity of the Speaker to perform his duties fairly and impartially;
(2) reaffirms the importance of all Members upholding and supporting the principle of the rule of law; and
(3) urges all Members to refrain from comments which may be perceived as supporting unlawful protest.”.
Points 2 and 3 of the government’s amendment to Mr Seselja’s motion actually underline the essence of Mr Seselja’s motion, but the lack of leadership shown by both the Attorney-General of this territory and, even worse, the Chief Minister—the new Chief Minister—of the territory is incredible—to state that they express ongoing confidence in the capacity of the Speaker to perform his duties fairly and impartially. The bottom line here is that Mr Rattenbury no longer works for Greenpeace. Mr Rattenbury has forsaken his former career to become a legislator, and that brings with it responsibility—responsibility to obey the law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video