Page 1082 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Greenpeace action at the CSIRO. The strong adverse public reaction to that activity meant that Greenpeace’s ability to win reform on that issue was quite arguably diminished.
Let me simply conclude by reiterating my key points, lest they be forgotten or misunderstood. I support the right of citizens to participate in peaceful and non-violent protest. I believe it is an entrenched and valued part of our system of democracy. I also hold the view that there is a valid role for civil disobedience in our society. In saying that, I will also be absolutely clear that I strongly support the rule of law and the fact that there will be consequences for people who break the law. I support those people who break the law being brought before the courts where their actions will be judged. Finally, I do not consider the destruction of property to be either peaceful or non-violent. I will not condone violence, destruction or vandalism.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (5.59): Mr Rattenbury has just said that he supports unlawful protest. But he has made it very clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that protest must be peaceful and non-violent and he has made it very clear that, in his view, that does not include the right to destroy property or commit vandalism. He repeated that three times throughout his speech. However, that is exactly what occurred last year at the CSIRO. Last year at the CSIRO there was vandalism; there was $300,000 worth of property damage and the staff were traumatised. I do not understand how it is that Mr Rattenbury, standing up here tonight making out this case—
At approximately 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR HANSON: On the basis of his argument, the logic of his argument, he appears to be condemning what has happened at the egg farm. But he is still not condemning what happened at the CSIRO. He has mounted a case. He said clearly, in black and white—and we can all go back to the Hansard—that he condemns actions that involve vandalism or the destruction of property. But he still refuses to condemn the actions regarding CSIRO. He had the opportunity throughout his speech to condemn Greenpeace on those actions and he has not. Until he does, he stands in this place as a hypocrite. You cannot say, “This is what I believe in,” and then not follow through on that.
I think that we would all grant Mr Rattenbury leave to give him the opportunity to stand in this place now and say: “I am stating what I believe in. I do not believe in the destruction of property and I do not believe in vandalism. Therefore, I condemn what occurred at the CSIRO and I condemn Greenpeace for that wanton vandalism.” I am sure that we would all grant him that leave. If he does not do so he stands condemned. It shows that when it comes to the rub he will put his allegiances to Greenpeace above the principles that he espouses in this place. This is a test for Mr Rattenbury; this is a real test. Are you going to stand in this place as a parliamentarian and follow through—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, please address your remarks through the chair.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video