Page 929 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Well, as you know Ross, I used to work for Greenpeace and I’ve certainly been involved in actions in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be greater issues.
So what you see from that, what you see from Mr Rattenbury’s position and the Greens’ position, is that certain laws are okay to be broken. Certain laws, I assume they think, are not okay to be broken, but if it accords with the Green ideology, you can break that law. They were widely condemned for that view. Scientists were outraged. An ABC news item, “Greenpeace blasted for GM vandalism”, stated:
Scientists have condemned Greenpeace for destroying a trial crop of genetically modified (GM) wheat in Canberra.
Scientists say the destruction of the trial crop in Canberra’s north yesterday is not only reprehensible, but also hypocritical.
And it is hypocritical because what the Greens will often talk about is evidence, be it to do with criminal justice or science, but they will select that evidence. So they will quote the CSIRO on one hand about climate change and say that we all must adhere to that evidence that has been provided, but the same CSIRO that is experimenting with GM crops is to be attacked and those crops are to be destroyed. That is a crime but the Greens do not think it is.
There were comments made across the spectrum condemning the Greens on their approach. I quote from Michael Moore, who sat as an independent in this place:
The Greens sit in the Assembly entrusted with the balance of power by the Canberra community to make laws that they expect us to obey. They are not in a position to condone any form of breaking the law—even if they privately agree with the objective.
And I certainly agree with that statement. Some of the defence in terms of the commentary that was made by Mr Rattenbury and the Greens at that time was that the individuals involved had not been found guilty, and certainly Mr Corbell made that point in the chamber when we had debate on this previously, that we could not condemn the Greens entirely for their position on this because the individuals involved had not been found guilty. They have now, so I await Mr Corbell’s condemnation of the Greens’ action and I certainly await Mr Rattenbury’s condemnation of the action. Indeed, the Liberal leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Zed Seselja, has put out a press release in which he says:
“I call on Shane Rattenbury to today publicly state his position on the CSIRO case” …
He must now condemn that criminal act, that wanton act of destruction. But we know that Mr Rattenbury and the Greens will not because it is a law that is okay to be broken and fits with their ideology. So they will not condemn it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video