Page 3314 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR WALL (Brindabella) (5.37), in reply: The response from the Greens is not even close to surprising, but I did find the comments by the Attorney-General quite interesting. He seemed to want to try to conflate this as a conservative posturing exercise. I think it was remiss of him not to have addressed in his comments the issues that have come out at the COAG level, in which the commonwealth have sent clear intentions to states and territories that they want to see these laws changed at a state or territory jurisdictional level. It seems very clear from the Attorney-General’s comments that that is a flat “no” from the ACT in complying with what has been a suggestion put forward at the COAG level.
It is also quite wrong of the attorney to try to suggest that this is about stifling freedom of speech, and suggesting that the opposition seeks to stifle freedom of speech, when in fact the only bastion of fighting for the rights of an individual’s freedom of speech that remains in this place is the Canberra Liberals.
This is not about the right to protest; this is more about whether or not those protesters should be able to invade and terrorise on people’s private property. In the instances that we have seen over the border, that is exactly what happened, and we are calling for stronger protections against that here in the ACT.
It is worth reminding members that the only gag that exists in the ACT on protest was introduced by the current government, supported by the Greens members on the crossbench. That is what you call stifling of freedom of speech, not insisting that protesters abide by laws and do not invade people’s private properties in the act of protest.
The attorney was keen to suggest that stronger penalties and tougher enforcement of laws were a conservative agenda. If a conservative agenda is having laws and punishments that are in line with community expectations then I am proud to be a conservative. It seems that the progressive cause, more and more often than not, is focused on reducing penalties and going soft on crime, as opposed to being tough on crime and sending a deterrent.
We have seen a very clear point of difference between the view of the government and that of the opposition. The opposition’s view is shared by many thousands of Canberrans: that there should be stronger laws that prevent these types of crimes from being incited or perpetrated against properties in the ACT.
Currently, we do not have the same protection that is afforded across the border. It is a keen point of difference that the opposition, the Canberra Liberals, are proud to stand by. We think it is in line with the values of the majority of Canberrans who want to see freedom of speech, freedom of protest and freedom of thought, but want to see it expressed in a lawful manner. Where someone steps outside those boundaries and seeks to terrorise someone’s property and destroy it, that is not being done in the name of free speech. That is vandalism, plain and simple.
We will continue to advocate for stronger penalties for those who incite and perpetrate these kinds of acts of flagrant vandalism, be they vegan or not. It is simply not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video