House debates
Monday, 18 October 2021
Statements
Personal Explanation
3:36 pm
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise to make a personal explanation.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I do. On 24 September, the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts issued a media release entitled 'Record $10 billion in government support for the creative sector'. In that release the minister claimed that I, along with the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, was 'dead wrong' when I accused him of massively overstating his government support for the arts sector during the early part of the pandemic, in October 2020. Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that, in his scramble to justify the claim of $10 billion in support for the arts, it is in fact the minister who is dead wrong.
The minister claims analysis published by the Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research backs him up, but, if you look at the research he provided, the $10 billion figure that he says was for the arts includes the following occupations: clothing retailing, footwear retailing, watch and jewellery retailing, architectural services, advertising services, and zoological and botanical gardens operations. These workers would be surprised to learn that they had the attention of the arts minister. It would be good if arts workers received his attention at some point.
3:38 pm
Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Does the member for Bowman claim to have been represented?
Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Over the last six months, I've been misrepresented by opposition members—and apologies for doing this as a batch. On 11 May, the member for Watson said that I was 'not fit to it be a member of the House' and referred to my vote as being 'tainted' because I was 'trolling and abusing' constituents.
On 12 May, Senator McAllister extensively quoted political opponents, without any substantiation or formal complaint to answer, either then or now.
On 13 May, the member for Dunkley referred to me as 'disgraced and disgraceful', with neither substantiation nor a single complaint to answer.
On 27 May the member for Jagajaga referred to 'inappropriate behaviour', again without any substantiated material.
On 16 June Senator Walsh referred to me as a 'known miscreant' who 'harasses the women in his community' and then the following day stated I have 'a history of trolling and abusing' constituents on Facebook.
On 16 June Senator Green referred to a 'long and proven track record of trolling and abusing' constituents online, but there was no substantiation. She then claimed that a political opponent of mine was forced to 'install CCTV cameras and an electronic security gate' on her home because of me.
On 16 June, Senator Polley referred to 'a long history of trolling and abusing' constituents on Facebook, which has 'undermined the safety and mental health' of an individual.
On 23 June the member for Brand referred to me 'treating women badly, trolling people on Facebook and continuing to behave badly'.
On 23 June, also, the member for Gellibrand said that I had the 'hide' to blame 'appalling trolling, bullying and harassment campaigns online on ADHD'.
On 23 June, the member for Griffith referred to me subjecting locals to 'false claims and social media abuse'.
On 23 June, also, the member for Macquarie said that my conduct 'diminishes the committee, the House and the parliament'.
On 23 June the member for Corangamite said that it establishes 'beyond question a character unfit to represent' and 'the kind of person the member for Bowman was long before he entered the House'. She said I 'viciously attacked female constituents from behind his computer screen'.
On 23 June the member for Lalor said:
He has a record of showing an absolute lack of empathy for the people he represents …
And then she went on to say this:
… good men who respect women … good men with integrity, good men with empathy and good men who would like to see the member for Bowman removed from the committee and removed from this parliament.
On 23 June, again, the member for Cooper said:
… the member for Bowman thinks he's entitled to be here in this House …
While there's no mechanism to prevent this hearsay and opinion, I note that not a single element of this communication has amounted to, or is ever likely to amount to, a formal complaint for assessment. I simply ask that these members reflect on this commentary, given evidence, which is now publicly available, that those matters lack any form of independent substantiation.