Page 928 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
crime in the ACT. From what Ms Hunter said in her speech, there seems to be some fear that someone is going to come into this place and say something outrageous like, “We do not tolerate crime.” That was what she said, that she fears that someone might come in here and say something like that. I am quite happy to say that the Canberra Liberals do not tolerate crime. We see crime as an insidious thing.
The Greens seem to have a slightly different approach. No, we do not tolerate crime but we know that the Greens do tolerate certain crimes. I think this is different to the approach that you see by the Canberra Liberals, who see all crimes as insidious, as something that we need to deal with, something that we should speak out against as parliamentarians, and that we should make sure that people understand that, regardless of what the crime is, we are against it, we stand by the law.
But the Greens have a different approach. What an evidence-based approach to crime means to the Greens is essentially: “We will select which crimes we think are bad and which we think are good.” We know that they think some are good crimes, that if you commit certain crimes they are not to be condemned, that we support—when I say “we”, the Greens support—activists going out there and conducting criminal damage. So if it is in accordance with Green ideology, then certain crimes are okay. And if they are against Green ideology or just common, garden crimes in the Greens’ book, then we do not like them.
Let me go through this to make my case. It is interesting and quite a coincidence that yesterday the Greenpeace members who broke into the CSIRO and ruined an experimental crop of genetically modified wheat have pleaded guilty to property damage charges. I take that from today’s Canberra Times. You will well remember that event, Madam Assistant Speaker, where two Greenpeace activists broke into a CSIRO facility and caused wilful damage. They caused hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage. They traumatised staff.
The response from the Greens was to say, “That is in accordance with our ideology, so we are not going to condemn that.” This was a case that was litigated in the Assembly before. We heard Mr Rattenbury in relation to that crime, and I will relate an interview that occurred on 666. Mr Solly asked:
But this is potentially breaking the law, they’ve destroyed someone else’s property. That’s breaking the law, surely?
Mr Rattenbury:
Well I think Greenpeace has got a track record at times breaking the law to draw attention to what might be a greater injustice or a greater problem.
Mr Solly:
And that’s okay?
Mr Rattenbury:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video