Page 1280 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The case he has made is that, in essence, what we are doing today is muzzling debate. We are saying: “Say what you like outside. You can’t say it in here. Particularly not if it’s nasty stuff you’re saying about the Greens.” And that is why they are so keen to support this motion.
I will be moving the amendment to the motion in my name. I have circulated it. This relates to my comments in the earlier debate today that on 16 August there were comments made by Ms Gallagher which—if you just excuse me while I open my computer—
Mrs Dunne: It has gone to sleep.
MR HANSON: It has gone to sleep—refer to this case. I think when you look at the two issues, the two issues are that Mr Seselja and I commented on what we considered to be the hypocrisy of the Greens, and we have pointed out the fact that there has been a case before the courts, people have been found guilty, and we simply articulated the facts. But what Ms Gallagher did on 16 August was provide the government’s position on this issue. She said:
… the government do not support in any way the incident that occurred at CSIRO last month. Science and the study of science are important, even if you disagree with the research underway.
So she commented on this issue. And what we seem to be doing now is making some vague assessment: “Katy’s comments are okay; Zed’s aren’t.” You cannot do that. In actual fact it was Ms Hunter and Mr Corbell that made the point that it is sub judice: “We cannot comment on it. You cannot refer to it. You cannot discuss it.” And that was their case. In fact, the Chief Minister’s comments, if you are going to find Mr Seselja and me guilty, are far more dangerous, for two reasons. Firstly, she is the Chief Minister. She is giving the government’s opinion on this matter. This is not the Greens’ response to it but the government’s position.
The second point is that this was a matter that had not gone before a jury. Mr Seselja and I made our comments after this had been through the courts, to the point where the individuals themselves had pleaded guilty and the courts had ruled on it, whereas Ms Gallagher’s comments, putting the government’s position forward, were made before it went before the jury. If you were on that jury, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would then be reading those comments and it would be made very clear to you that the government does not support what happened and further notes that science and the study of science are important, even if you disagree with the research underway. That is sending a very clear message to those jurors: “These people shouldn’t have done that. Science is important. You don’t go in there and vandalise science.” That was what the Chief Minister was saying, and she was saying the government does not support it.
So I do not understand how it is that the government could be saying that the comments from Mr Seselja and me are problematic but that the comments by Ms Gallagher, which lay out the government’s position relating to a particular offence that is yet to reach the situation where people are found guilty, are somehow okay.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video