Page 1286 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have heard the usual spray coming from the opposition, and I must say that the hysterical way this debate started this morning shows just how out of control the Leader of the Opposition is at the moment. We all know he is under a fair bit of pressure, but the anger and the feigned outrage he has demonstrated this morning just shows—
Mr Hanson interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you are warned.
MS GALLAGHER: how much pressure he actually is under. He had several avenues to pursue when the Speaker made his ruling this morning—several of them. One of them—the one that I would have chosen if I was in his position—was to perhaps take a bit of time to understand the Speaker’s ruling but to then apologise to the Assembly. Or if he could not bring himself to apologise he could have used some words to deal with the Speaker’s ruling. Instead, he came out fighting, arms swinging, anger palpable, moving dissent in the Speaker. As usual, it is everyone else’s fault and certainly nothing to do with the Canberra Liberals.
At the end of the day, Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson simply stuffed up last week. They were not measured in their comments; they were all excited about a political attack. We have seen them do it inside and outside this chamber. They got all excited, they got ahead of themselves and they went too far. That is what continuing resolution 10 is actually there for—to guide and provide assistance to members. Indeed, in the debate Mr Seselja mocked Ms Le Couteur around her understanding of sub judice when she raised it in relation to Pace Farm. He mocked her, so he was aware of the issue. Then he went on to give his opinion on a whole range of matters. That is the difference between what I said and what Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson said. They went on to give opinions; they went on to talk about the extent of the damage that had been done; they went on to talk about impact on the victims.
If you go back and read my comments in the Hansard, yes, I always stand in this place to uphold the rule of the law. It was very clear that something had gone on at CSIRO that was not lawful, but I did not express a view about who had done it and what the consequences of that should be. I also went on in my comments to talk about alleged unlawful conduct. So I was careful; I was measured; I was aware that this case was before the courts, which is where it is appropriately dealt with. I did not overstep the mark in terms of the decisions that Mr Seselja and Mr Hanson took. Mr Corbell prefaced his comments with the fact that this matter is before the courts and that that is the appropriate place for this to be dealt with.
We see the standard and tired Liberal Party defence mechanism—that is, stand there, and, frankly, my four-year-old—
Mrs Dunne: You wish. You wish, Katy.
MS GALLAGHER: Mrs Dunne, I will take that as a threat, shall I? My four-year-old has better defence mechanisms than this one, which is simply: “It’s not my fault. It’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video