Page 909 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
what he did on Tuesday in the censure motion—that is, he has gone on the attack. Rather than be humble, rather than be contrite, he has once again gone on the attack. It is, in effect, the bully’s playbook that he is putting in place right now.
He blamed the rules; he blamed the man; and then he claims to be a victim. He took no responsibility for his actions. It seems his entire defence was based on the fact that what Mr Hanson did was somehow unparliamentarily and it provoked him. Somehow, he does not have the self-control. When provoked, he just lets rip. He seems to think it is reasonable, when you are provoked, to become a bully. Imagine if this happened in schools. Imagine if this happened in workplaces. Imagine if this happened anywhere else in our society. The Labor Party would be condemning it. Instead, you have the leader of the Labor Party justifying bullying. The very basis of Mr Barr’s defence was the fact that Mr Hanson had been offensive and that he had been unparliamentary. Of course, this is totally wrong.
If Mr Barr had actually read the annex to the report published on Tuesday, he would note that page 36 states in regard to Mr Hanson:
… with your immediate clarification upon your first usage of “pocket” that you were referring to Mr Barr in his role as Treasurer (ie the money goes to the ACT Budget) not in a personal capacity, it is reasonable to hold that the language was not unparliamentary.
It was not unparliamentary. This is the advice that the committee has received. This is the advice the committee received from the committee secretary and it states that the advice has been cleared by the Clerk. So the entire basis of Mr Barr’s defence is either based on an untruth or it is from the bully’s playbook. But one way or the other it is unbecoming for a member of this Assembly, let alone the Chief Minister, to make these kinds of remarks.
It is simply unacceptable in any workplace that you would have someone say, “Let’s take it outside. Let’s take it outside.” It is totally inappropriate. The advice from the Clerk, or the advice approved by the Clerk, clearly states that Mr Hanson’s language was not unparliamentary. Given that the committees are an extension of this chamber, that advice is pretty solid.
Is Mr Barr really going to rest his entire defence on something which is contradicted by the Clerk and is based on being a bully? Of course, the ball is once again in the Greens’ court. Once again, are they going to double-down on this coalition or are they actually going stand up with some integrity? Sending the matter to a privileges committee is not even really standing up for integrity. It is at least standing up for the processes that are put in place for this very instance.
They have an opportunity here. The Greens have a clear opportunity to actually take on board the advice of the committee secretary that was approved by the Clerk not to accept the bully’s defence and to allow the parliamentary process to run its course through a privileges committee. I think we owe it to all members of this place to have these sorts of processes upheld and not to tolerate this kind of behaviour.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video