Page 3221 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
courts. It is an extraordinary position. Greenpeace have acknowledged what they have done. The only question will be how a court deals with that acknowledgement of what they have done. We all know what they did. In fact, now the government’s position is: maybe they are not guilty; maybe when they filmed that they were not really destroying property and the property was not destroyed and it was not by Greenpeace—it was by someone else claiming to be Greenpeace. But Mr Corbell now invites us to reconsider this matter. He invites us to reconsider this matter and we will consider that position.
In terms of what we have before us today and this amendment put forward by Mr Smyth, we say to the government: how low are your standards? That is the question we are posing to the government. We have said that we believe that a person in this position should not be making these statements, therefore the position is untenable, and therefore there should be no confidence. The government says: “No. We agree that he did the wrong thing, but we still have confidence in him.” We have now said: “Well, censure him. You should censure him for these statements, for bringing the Assembly into disrepute, for undermining confidence in the rule of law,” and the government is saying to us, “No, we don’t believe he requires censure either.” How low are your standards? How much are you prepared to trash this place and the reputation of this place for your cosy coalition? That is the question before the government, before the Labor Party, on this question before the Assembly. How much will you trash the reputation of the Assembly so that you can keep your green mates happy? That is where we get to.
Not only do they not want to express no confidence but also they will not even take any action against the Speaker for bringing the Assembly into disrepute. I think that shows just how little regard the Labor Party has for this Assembly and how little regard it has for its responsibilities in this place, to this place and to the people whom we represent in this place. It shows just how much they will trash these standards, how much they are in the thrall of the Greens that they will take no action, that they will not give one of their own the opportunity to step up, that they will not even condemn, through parliamentary language, the actions of the Speaker, because the Greens control this government—this cosy coalition—and they cannot rock the boat.
The Labor Party cannot rock the boat, even to the extent of expressing concern through parliamentary language and censuring the Speaker. They cannot even bring themselves to do it. It just shows how low their standards now are. There is no action. In doing that, they endorse the actions. You can say all the weasel words you like in debate, but you are going to have a chance now to vote. The Labor members and the Greens members are going to say: “This is okay. It is okay for the Speaker of this Assembly to condone criminal activity.” That is what the Labor Party and the Greens are saying today. That is the message, loud and clear, that they are giving to the community—that it is okay to condone this behaviour, that if your cause is just and believed in passionately enough then it is okay to go and trash property, it is okay to go and attack scientists, it is okay to go and destroy property to further your cause.
Mr Speaker, this is the day the Labor Party and the Greens say there are no standards. There are no standards under them in this place. They do not care about the reputation of this place. All they care about is keeping this coalition going and keeping this coalition happy, Mr Speaker. But they do it at the expense of the Assembly. They do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video