Page 1793 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Ms Lee. Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY: So Mr Davis was found not to have breached the rules. Where was the recognition from the Liberal Party that they had overstepped? Did any of them come in here and say, “Sorry about that. We got a bit ahead of ourselves”? No. They threw all the smears and then, when the evidence showed something different: crickets. Absolute silence.
We will not participate in those sorts of processes. We expect a degree of due process. We expect a degree of procedural fairness. These are basic tenets of modern liberal democratic societies. We expect the process to be conducted fairly and thoroughly, and that is why we signed off on sending this to the Auditor-General yesterday. Unlike the Liberal Party, we will not run ahead of ourselves. We want the answers. The Liberal Party seem more focused on the political scalp, and that is why we will not support this motion of no confidence today.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (10.46): Firstly, I would like to commend this motion to the Assembly. I thank Ms Lee for shining a light on this issue and the minister’s conduct, and I commend her for that. That is the job of an opposition, and I think she has done it exceptionally well in this case. It is disappointing to see the response of those opposite, who are again, rather than dealing with the matter substantively, seeking to do exactly what they are accusing Ms Lee of doing. They say, “You’re just playing politics; these are just insults.”
Mr Barr spent most of his speech insulting Ms Lee. He spent most of his time deriding her. There were personal attacks, going as far as talking about whether she was in the chamber for Mrs Jones’s valedictory. I am not sure what that has to do with this very serious motion today, other than just being an excuse for Mr Barr to personally attack Ms Lee in a pretty plain, distressing and disappointing way, rather than dealing with the substance of what I think we would all agree is a very serious issue.
Mr Rattenbury continued in that vein—going off the topic, looking to try and say, “This is just some sort of political attack.” Clearly, it is not. He admitted that this does not pass the pub test and that it is an issue of concern, but he said, “It’s only been out there for 48 hours.” No, it did not pass the pub test 14 months ago. What we know from the minister is that it did not pass the pub test back then. For Mr Rattenbury to try and say, “This has only just arisen as an issue,” flies in the face of the very point that Ms Lee is making—that this has been sitting on the minister’s desk for 14 months. It did not pass the pub test then; it does not pass the pub test now.
He went on to make a meandering attack on Ms Lee and the Canberra Liberals. He referred to a motion last week about Mr Davis—a motion that was supported by the Assembly, I would point out. There was no division; there was no vote against that motion. It was supported by the Assembly.
Do you remember when the attacks were made on Mr Milligan? You would remember that one, Madam Speaker, wouldn’t you? Remember the attacks on Mr Milligan? I do not remember Mr Rattenbury coming back in here after that one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video