Page 1275 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let me be clear on this: the Liberal Party will not be gagged on this or other issues. We will not be gagged, and we will go outside the chamber if we are not allowed to speak about it inside the chamber and we will condemn members of parliament who condone in any way illegal activity, and I stand by that absolutely. That is what this is about. It is about the fact that the Greens are uncomfortable about the contradictory positions that they hold on this, about the fact that they are law-makers but they encourage law-breakers.
The uncomfortable position of the Greens has been on display in recent times. Every time we raise this we get a furious reaction from the Greens. Now we see the Labor Party backing that view of the world. Through this motion, they are backing the view of the world that we should not be able to condemn those actions, that we should not be able to condemn the lack of leadership on the other side from the crossbench and, indeed, from the Speaker.
Let us be clear on what this is about. This is a Greens party that is very sensitive on this issue, and you can understand why. Every time you hear Mr Rattenbury speak about this, you see his sensitivity on this issue. He clearly understands that it is an illogical position to take, that it is an indefensible position to take, but he cannot bring himself to condemn his mates in Greenpeace. It is now at a point where the Assembly is having its time wasted by motions like this by the Labor Party.
Government members interjecting—
MR SESELJA: We hear the chortles. They have got so much business that they want to now defend Shane Rattenbury on his position on Greenpeace. That is what this is about. This is another example of just how cosy this coalition is now. There was a time when they would have sought to distance themselves from this kind of behaviour from Mr Rattenbury. There was a time when they would have said, “Yes, look, we need their support for government, but, gee, you know, we don’t agree with Mr Rattenbury.” They have put themselves shoulder to shoulder with the Greens on this issue. They have no credibility because they are saying: “Not only will we not condemn Mr Rattenbury for his comments, but you shouldn’t even be able to speak about them in this chamber. You will now be gagged from speaking about them in this chamber. We don’t want that kind of criticism.”
We reject that utterly. I rejected that when it was applied to my political opponents with whom I disagreed, but I defended their right to speak. We should have the right to have robust debate in this place, robust debate that sometimes makes all of us uncomfortable. That is the nature of our democracy. We should not be gagged unreasonably, particularly in a situation where the facts are not even in dispute. We have got a guilty plea. We have got a Supreme Court that is very capable of making independent decisions, and we should have the opportunity to debate these issues in the Assembly.
We completely and utterly reject this motion. It is just a further example of how the Labor Party will now back anything the Greens say and do. They stand shoulder to shoulder with them. We will stand up for freedom of speech, and we will certainly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video