Page 188 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is why it is important. That is why we should have an answer. That is why it is appropriate to ask this question, and that is why all members should support Mr Hanson’s motion. More importantly, the barb is thrown across the way, “Don’t you understand the value of the Indigenous embassy?” Yes, I do. I have been there many times. I have had conversations with many Indigenous groups in this place. I am currently in conversation with Indigenous groups on how we keep that history alive and how we commemorate it. So this side of the Assembly does have an interest in it and we do understand the importance. The sad thing is that because of the actions that occurred on that day, disrepute has now been heaped upon the Indigenous people of this country because of a lie that they were told.
Lies grow out of lies, so the questions are these: what did the Prime Minister’s press secretary say to the minister for Indigenous affairs’ chief of staff that led her to make the decision to refer that phone call to Kim Sattler? We hear it was for a media comment. I am not aware of any media comment being given, except the crowd being told something that Tony Abbott did not say, attributed falsehoods and lies to Mr Abbott, and it resulted in the debacle that became Australia Day 2012. That is why, in the new era of openness and accountability under the Gillard—under the Gallagher government—
Mr Hanson: A Freudian slip.
MR SMYTH: Yes, a Freudian slip. They behave the same way so often—say one thing and then change your story. That is why, in this new era of accountability and openness under the Gallagher government, it would be appropriate to get the answer—and it is appropriate, now that we know, according to Mr Corbell, that the minister was on official duty, representing the people of the ACT in the march and at the embassy on that day. So in his capacity as minister for Indigenous affairs—and it is curious; this lot over here have been saying long and hard, “Well, you can’t ask him that question; he wasn’t responsible.” Mr Corbell knew right from the start that he was responsible, as did we, as did all reasonable people. It is appropriate that we have this motion. It is appropriate that we get an answer and it is appropriate that this full story is known so that it never happens again.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella) (2.52): I am reading this motion that Mr Hanson has put down here. It calls on the minister to name the staff member. The Leader of the Opposition did that. It also asks him in what capacity was the call made. Dr Bourke said it was the chief of staff. It then says for what purpose, and that was to respond to a request for a media contact. As far as I can see, all three questions here have been answered. What we are seeing happen across the chamber at the moment, I think, is the building up of a straw man, the building up of a rate of hysteria, to detract from their own troubles at home. I think that is really where it is. It is about saying: “We’re in a bit of trouble here in the community, so what we’ll do is we’ll invoke the theory of the state of fear. What we’ll do is we’ll create an issue.” The issue in fact—
Mrs Dunne: No, I think Kim Sattler did that.
MR HARGREAVES: You don’t think at all, Mrs Dunne. You are incapable of it. I am sick and tired of this, Mr Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video