Page 1927 - Week 05 - Thursday, 3 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.54): Firstly, I will confirm that the Greens will be supporting the amendments proposed by Mr Corbell. Again, we have had a discussion with the departmental officials on these matters and understand the rationale behind the amendments being required.
I will also briefly comment on the remarks Mr Seselja just made. It is gobsmacking the new standard that has been set by the Liberal Party here today. The exact issue he has just highlighted—I actually disagree with his analysis and do not think it is going to be the case—could have been safeguarded against by the amendment I just proposed. But the Liberal Party (a) could not comment on it (b) did not respond to us in the 24 hours since we sent amendment and (c) simply voted against it. It just goes to show that there is no willingness to engage in a constructive conversation in this place.
You may disagree with the legislation, but it is clearly going to go through. If you had a bone of integrity in your body, when a potential safeguard is pointed out to you, you might overcome your political position and do the right thing for the Canberra community. But that is not the Liberal Party. It is all about headlines; it is never about the practical outcomes. It is all about a cheap shot. It is not about getting the best outcome for the Canberra community.
Members interjecting—
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, Mr Rattenbury. Stop the clock, please. Members, there is just far too much noise. I cannot hear what Mr Rattenbury is saying. You will hear Mr Rattenbury in silence, otherwise you will be warned.
MR RATTENBURY: The really disappointing part is they fail to do the analysis and understand how the legislation works. That is highlighted in Mr Seselja’s press release on this issue, which has gone out—
Mrs Dunne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I ask you to have Mr Rattenbury withdraw the assertion that Mr Seselja does not have an ounce of integrity? That is a personal reflection and I—
MR RATTENBURY: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify that I was not referring specifically to Mr Seselja; I was referring to the whole opposition bench.
Mrs Dunne: On the point of order, I take exception to that and consider it is a personal reflection on me. I would like it withdrawn.
Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in previous Assemblies to this one, where the perceived slight has been to a specific member, the member delivering the slight has been asked to withdraw. Where, however, the perceived slight has been to a corporate entity, it has been ruled not to be out of order.
Mr Coe: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, a review of Hansard will show that Mr Rattenbury did in fact say, “If you have got a bone of integrity in your
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video