Page 1279 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I can only hope that this gets on the front page. I can only hope that Mr Seselja is called on by the media to talk about this issue. This is something we want to be talking about, because we want to be talking about how inappropriate the Greens’ response has been. And I think that this will be judged in the court of public opinion. Go out there and ask the common man and woman in the street: “People have been found guilty of what, in Mr Rattenbury’s definition, is a violent protest at the CSIRO. Should he condemn that?” And he will not. So we are happy to talk about this issue.
Let us be very clear. The Liberals have not been debating the offence; they have been debating the Greens’ response to it. These are different matters. We have not said anything that has not been put in the public domain. And what we are doing here now is applying one rule for us as parliamentarians inside the chamber and another rule for us outside the chamber.
Mr Rattenbury himself litigated this issue in an opinion piece. He went on Ross Solly’s program and discussed this issue, and I think I heard him on 2CC with Mark Parton as well. So I must say I am somewhat confused about how the judiciary will listen to the radio and read CityNews or other publications and not be affected by it—Mr Rattenbury can go out and do what he likes there—but Lord forbid, if Mr Seselja or Mr Hanson make similar sorts of comments about this case in the chamber, all of a sudden there is some sort of perception that the judiciary is going to be swayed. I think that is a nonsense. I think that you know it is a nonsense. I think the government and the Greens know it is a nonsense. And this is a foolish attempt to try to attack Mr Seselja and me. But bring it on. We are very happy to be talking about the substantive issue; that is, the Greens’ response to what Mr Rattenbury has articulated as a violent protest.
We obviously do not agree with this motion. There is a matter of discretion, and I think that Mr Smyth has made the point exceptionally well about these matters. And I can see you sitting up there conflicted right now, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this sub judice? Is this in accordance with continuing resolution 10? I can see that running through your mind, and you are probably seeking advice from the Deputy Clerk: “Is it? Is it not?” This is the whole point. Is this a matter for your discretion? You can make a choice right here and right now, just as you did the other week, which is the subject of this motion, where you decided it was not, and just as the Speaker on 16 August decided it was not. And you make that discretion.
You cannot then come back weeks later or, in relation to 16 August, months later and say, “That discretion that I applied, I got it wrong.” If you are going to move this motion, the next motion should be condemning the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker for getting their discretion wrong back then and changing their minds. If that is what is occurring here, I can see the conflict in your face right now.
Mr Seselja’s point has been about the effect of this motion today. He has articulated the case very well. I would have to say that in all the debate today his legal training has come to the fore. Whilst the pretend lawyer over there, Mr Corbell, has struggled to mount a case, I think you can see the benefits of an education in the law in the case that Mr Seselja has put forward.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video