Page 3265 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 10 November 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It appears to me that earlier commentary made in the Sydney Morning Herald has been mischaracterised and used in a misleading way. She has made this very clear on the public record. I quote from the Canberra Times of 24 July, weeks before the offending motion. The article is titled “ACT euthanasia: NT senator Sam McMahon lashes Labor for ‘false, baseless, and incorrect’ comments”. It says:
NT senator Sam McMahon says federal Labor’s claims that Zed Seselja blocked her from including the ACT in her new voluntary euthanasia bill are “false, baseless, and incorrect” …
The Canberra Times has seen a letter from Senator McMahon to Senator Gallagher, which accuses the Labor frontbencher of peddling a false narrative about the ACT’s exclusion from her draft bill.
Madam Speaker, Ms Cheyne and Mr Rattenbury went ahead anyway and, through their motion and the words that are on the Hansard in their speeches, are either making the case that Senator McMahon is lying or saying that they were not aware of that statement and the public statements from Senator McMahon in the Canberra Times, despite the fact that they had been on the public record for a number of weeks leading up to their motion.
What is clear to me, based on the comments, the evidence, provided by Senator McMahon in her letter to Senator Gallagher and her public statements in the Canberra Times, is that Mr Rattenbury and Ms Cheyne have misled the Assembly in the wording of the motion and what they said during their speeches. Based on the form of this place, it is appropriate that they withdraw. If they fail to do so, Madam Speaker, they would, in effect, be calling Senator McMahon a liar.
It is an interesting question as to whether Ms Cheyne and Mr Rattenbury knew of the very clear statements from Senator McMahon and decided to go ahead anyway or whether they were unaware of her very clear and unambiguous statements. That is a matter for them to discuss as they speak to this. But it is not relevant. The point is that, based on very clear and definitive statements, they have misled. The motives of Ms Cheyne and Mr Rattenbury are not relevant to that question.
The nub of my motion, and what I hope for today, is that they accept that they have misled this Assembly and withdraw. Given that that has occurred and that a letter has gone to federal parliamentarians, it is appropriate that an apology be made and the record be corrected. That is an appropriate and correct course of action for the members to take.
As I said yesterday, this whole issue and episode have not helped us in our joint endeavour to get state rights for the ACT. It appears that the motivation of Ms Cheyne and Mr Rattenbury is less about arguing in a tripartisan way for state rights than seeing an opportunity to attack and smear Senator Seselja.
Regardless of the outcome of this motion today—the Labor Party and the Greens have got the numbers, so I am not confident that it will succeed, though I am not sure what the response is going to be—it would be apparent to senators and members on the hill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video