Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What an amazing statement by the person leading for the Australian Labor Party in this debate. A motion endorsing the rule of law, which is a fundamental underpinning of our society, is a stunt. From now on we can talk about any motion—for example, supporting freedom of speech—as a stunt. If we happen to believe in equality between the sexes, that is just a stunt. Let this now be the measure on which we judge every single one of Labor's motions that come before this place and let us see the humiliation that it affords them. Let us be very clear, the motion I sought to move had no allegations against anybody. The motion was this: that the Senate affirms that our society operates on the rule of law. Is there any senator in this place that disagrees with that proposition? They are all quiet, aren't they? The next proposition calls on all Australians to respect and abide by the rule of law. Is there a senator in the Labor Party and the Greens that actually disagrees with that proposition? Once again, they are deliberately avoiding the issue. Thirdly, we should be condemning expressions of support for breaching the rule of law. Again, silence. They were three general propositions that they cannot oppose, but they will not allow them to be voted on because they know their taskmaster, the secretary of the ACTU, has demanded that they block this motion—a motion that has three fundamental principles in it. Our society has to be based on the rule of law. If it is not, we descend into anarchy. Whether we like it or not, we have to support the laws of our country.

Indeed, I am sure, and I have witnessed, Labor and Greens senators at Australian citizenship ceremonies getting up and quoting the affirmation about Australia, which says 'whose laws I uphold and obey'. And yet, they are not willing to support that proposition in this very place. What hypocrites: they get up at citizenship ceremonies and assert that they support and obey the laws of this country when, deep in their own hearts, they do not believe in it. They believe that they are somehow above the rest of the Australian people, that they can pick and choose when they want to abide by a law, that they have the moral rectitude to break the law whenever they deem it appropriate. But, of course, all the other underlings have to agree to abide by the laws if they think they are good laws. If everybody took that view, what mayhem would we have on the streets? What would happen if somebody said: 'I don't like that green stop sign. I don't agree with that law in these circumstances. I'm going to go through it.'

We have a rule of law that says that if we do not like a decision, be it of the court or of the parliament, we then run for parliament to seek to change the law. That is the orderly manner in which we change laws in this country. Or, indeed, if we do not like the decision of the lower court, we can appeal it to the higher court until, ultimately, we are stuck with a decision of the High Court. And if we do not like that, then we seek to have legislative change. That is how an orderly, civilised society operates. But what we have here from the extreme left, now wagging the dog of the Labor Party and the Greens, is them saying that they in fact will whisper that they believe in the rule of law, but, by their actions in this place today, they have shown that they fundamentally disagree with these propositions. Allow me to read them again for all of the Australian people to hear very clearly: Labor and the Greens oppose that we should 'affirm that our society operates on the rule of law'; they oppose any calling on Australians 'to respect and abide by the rule of law'; and they are unwilling to 'condemn expressions of support for breaking the rule of law'. I know what side I stand on. (Time expired)