Page 4661 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Corbell: Six!
MR SESELJA: Yes, six. I know, it is terrible, isn’t it? It is just terrible. I would like to draw attention to the reasons for missing those meetings. As many would know, my wife had our third baby this year and, after a caesarean, with two premature births previously, it was quite a high-risk pregnancy. On a number of occasions during the latter part of that pregnancy, my wife had to go to hospital and had to have special visits to the doctor, and I was called upon to support her in that. Of course, one of the meetings I missed was on 19 July, the day after my son was born.
I guess the message we are getting from the government on this is that it would have been a better outcome if, instead of going to hospital with my wife, I had been at the P&E committee meeting; that, instead of being there the day after my son was born, to support my wife, or when my wife had high blood pressure during the pregnancy, which leads to premature birth, which is something that she suffered from before, I should have put aside those family concerns on the basis of a P&E committee meeting. One of the meetings I missed commenced at 4.00 pm, it was resolved that the minutes of the meeting be confirmed and then it adjourned. That is what happened at one of the meetings that I missed. So this is the kind of work I missed.
What the message has been from the Labor Party on this is that, in supporting my wife, in taking leave for a high-risk pregnancy, in supporting her when she had to go to hospital, in supporting her when she had to go to the doctor, I have somehow neglected my duties. I think people on the opposite side want to be very careful. Certainly no political capital has been made before when government members have missed significant periods on the basis of personal health issues. I certainly would not have made personal capital, political capital, about that, and I would expect that none will be made when Ms Gallagher goes and has her baby—and nor should it.
What we have seen is stooping to the lowest of the low from this government. They are saying, “No, you should not have supported your wife. Don’t support your wife. Don’t go with her to the hospital. Go to the meeting. That is much more important. We had to confirm the minutes. You shouldn’t be there with your wife.” This is how low the Labor Party have stooped. Mr Corbell was leading the charge, saying, “Mr Seselja doesn’t make it to meetings.” Of course, he did miss several weeks. He missed several weeks and no-one said a word about it because we accepted that there are some times when personal issues, personal health issues, family issues, are more important. I think most people in the community would accept that, and I think they would be appalled at the way that Mr Gentleman, Mr Corbell and Mr Stanhope have sought to make political capital out of this.
I just repeat that six out of the seven absences were as a result of a high-risk pregnancy, most of them at the latter stages of a high-risk pregnancy. When my wife had serious health complaints, I was there to support her. I was there for when the baby was born and I was there to help her, support her, after that time. If the government are going to stoop to this kind of level in debate, I think they should be outed for who they are. I will not make political capital about people’s personal issues, about people’s family issues, but if the government want to continue to do so it will all be out on the table.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .