Page 4118 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is worth going back to the debate actually in the chamber when I moved the motion on behalf of the Greens some weeks ago. At the time I was talking about why we were concerned about Throsby. What I actually said at the time, the relevant sentence in a context of talking about why we were concerned and what some of the threats were at Throsby, was:
Throsby is the perfect case in point of the kind of area for which we should perhaps just put aside all notion of development. Whilst our motion today does not call for this specifically to happen as the work has not been finished that will determine this final decision, the Greens’ view is that Throsby may well be a complete no-go zone.
I then went on to talk about some of the issues that arise in Throsby. I think it is quite clear to anybody who listens to the actual use of language that there are a number of caveats in there. I have talked about “perhaps”, “put aside” and that we “may well” have to consider that. But clearly there are some conditions in that and they are based on the assessments that we were calling for.
But of course, Mr Seselja, in his casual relationship with the truth, the next morning on 666 said, “The Greens want the whole suburb of Throsby not to go ahead.” He said: “Well, that is not what Shane Rattenbury said. He said, ‘The whole of Throsby should be considered a no-go zone.’”
Mr Hanson: Mr Assistant Speaker—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Mr Rattenbury, hold the phone, please. Stop the clock, please. Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Mr Rattenbury, in his comments about Mr Seselja, stated that Mr Seselja has a casual relationship with the truth. I would ask whether you would rule on whether that is unparliamentary and, if so, ask him to withdraw.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I think Mr Hanson has a point, Mr Rattenbury, and I would invite you to withdraw that comment.
MR RATTENBURY: I withdraw. Mr Seselja went on to say on radio, talking about me: “Shane Rattenbury said, ‘The whole of Throsby should be considered a no-go zone for development.’” So he was not telling the truth in the Assembly and he should correct the record. But that is the Greens’ policy. That is what is being put forward by their spokesperson.”
So what has happened here is that Mr Seselja has listened to the actual debate and then he has gone out and wilfully reinterpreted it to suit his own ends when he has appeared on 666. I think that is a very unfortunate position for a member of this place to be taking. Mr Seselja is a lawyer. He knows you are supposed to read the whole sentence, not pick out the bits that you like and then go and use them in a way to suit your own purposes.
Of course the irony here is that I used those conditional words like “perhaps” and “may” because I was talking in a contextual way. Mr Seselja is the one who is out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video