Page 642 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It does not require Mr Hargreaves to do anything. There is no direction from us in this place. All of us have said that we do not support it, we do not like the words and we think they are unfortunate—those sorts of words. But it is okay to let them stand!
What this amendment does today is simply say that what happened last Wednesday is acceptable. I put the case that we have to say to members who want to behave in the manner in which Mr Hargreaves behaved last Wednesday that it is unacceptable. It is clearly unacceptable because we want an apology to this place, and that is what I am asking for. This is about this place. Part (4) is about this place. You might not have read part (4), Ms Burch. It is “to require Mr Hargreaves to apologise to the Assembly for the comments he made”—for using the forms and the privilege of this place for his little rant, for his little tirade. That is what I am asking.
This is not a motion about the TCC; this is a motion about us. This amendment says that a member can say whatever they want and we do not care—for whatever reason you choose to vote against my motion, we just do not care about the standards anymore, and so much so that we will actually obliterate, remove from the motion, any attempt to hold a member to account.
I just raise it with members. I was censured for the tone of a press release—the tone of a press release; not the words, but the tone of a press release. Censured! All we have asked for here is an apology. But no. The Greens and the Labor Party do not believe that it is worthy of apology; they believe that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. That is what it says. This amendment legitimises the behaviour. It says that it is okay to come into this place in the adjournment debate and have a rant—to say whatever you want, even things that subsequently prove to be not factually correct, let alone the tone, the slur and the imputation of them—and we will let it stand.
That, members, is why this amendment should not be agreed to. What you would do is validate the behaviour of last Wednesday night. What you would validate is members coming into this place, saying whatever they want and not being held to account. That is why we will not be supporting the amendment.
It is unfortunate. I appreciate that there is argy-bargy in political debate, and good on you for attempting to turn it back onto the Liberal Party, but, at the end of the day, if this amendment gets up, these words will stand in Hansard, and the only people to have spoken against them and acted to confirm that they are not the views of the Assembly or that such words are not acceptable to the Assembly will be the Liberal Party.
It will be the Liberal Party that is upholding the standards in this place. It will be the Liberal Party that will be holding a member to account when the Chief Minister could have simply said: “Don’t do it. Go down and apologise.” Other chief ministers and other ministers in this place in previous governments have told members, when they believed that their behaviour was unacceptable, to go and apologise to the person personally. And that has occurred.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video