Page 420 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 14 February 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
politics who are delighted with the position that the progressives have taken, ironically, to stop the debate. I do not know.
It is worth noting as well the fact that Mr Shorten supported a plebiscite in 2013 when he said that he was “completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite”. That was in relation to same-sex marriage. I say that again, “completely relaxed”. It is only since it has become politically expedient for Mr Shorten to oppose it that he has now done so.
I remind new members as well that it was six years of the Labor Party with the Greens support in the Senate as a quasi coalition not supporting same-sex marriage—six years of opportunity. So coming in here and talking about the urgency, making speeches that are about Neanderthal conservatives and so on that we have heard before from the Chief Minister when we had six years of inaction, again is gross hypocrisy, and I will not be lectured on on this issue.
Ms Le Couteur said it was shameful that the same-sex laws that were passed in this place were ruled invalid by the High Court. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may wish to reflect on the Hansard and see whether it is a breach of any standing order to reflect on the High Court decision—the full bench, I think, or a unanimous decision—as a shameful decision. I think that is an odd thing to do. But it was a correct legal decision because the laws here were invalid. It was a legal decision. I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that we support the position of the High Court. They make rulings and it is our job now as legislators to acknowledge that, not to come into this place and call them shameful.
If Ms Le Couteur misspoke when she was talking about the original laws and described the parliaments that passed those laws are shameful, then those laws that have been characterised as shameful, I remind you, had the unanimous support of the Labor Party.
I digress. In some way I apologise for the need to go to the important debates and what I remind members is that when we get JACS legislation, SLAB legislation, or some of them, we are not getting into the broader national debates. If you want to have that, we have got a motion tomorrow. Let us have the debate then. But let us stick to the facts. If you are going to come in here and give lectures, get your facts right and stop the hypocrisy.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (4.48): We have seen Mr Hanson once again take the opportunity to twist what somebody has said to his own political purposes. It is important that I stand up and clarify certainly the point Ms Le Couteur was making, and I will speak briefly to a couple of the other points raised in the debate.
In terms of a plebiscite that may or may not have been held last Saturday, yes, the Greens did vote against it. I will tell you why we did. We voted against it because the community told us that we should vote against it. We consulted members of the LGBTI community across Australia, and they feared the consequences of that plebiscite. They feared the unleashing of the hatred that would come through that debate. They feared the sort of diatribe we saw coming from the likes of Ross
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video