This speech was delivered on 29th May 2014 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.07 a.m.]: This motion was raised by the Government Whip once Senator Lee Rhiannon was no longer in this Parliament, because none of the members opposite would have had the courage to stand up to Lee Rhiannon to make these unfounded and grossly distorted attacks on her character. This effectively is an attempt to do a character assassination of a woman who, when she was in this Chamber, fundamentally changed politics in this State in a way that continues to embarrass the likes of Dr Peter Phelps and other members of this Chamber and in the other place who are currently being disgraced because of their connections with lobbyists and acceptance of donations from property developers and the tobacco industry. They have been disgracefully successful in prostituting politics in this State to the highest bidder, whether a property developer, a tobacco company or a bank—whoever is willing to fill the pockets of the likes of Dr Phelps, who raised this motion.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: I take offence at the comments made by Mr David Shoebridge. He has named me as taking donations from property developers and from the tobacco industry. That is completely untrue and he should withdraw those allegations or present evidence to the contrary.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I will be very clear: I am talking about his party and I am talking about all other parties in this Chamber and the history that they have of taking money from property developers, from the tobacco industry, from any industry, regardless of its harm and damage. It is a reference to the party, not to the individual.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): Order! I refer Mr Jeremy Buckingham to my earlier ruling: When a member takes a point of order he or she does not need a cheer squad. Mr Jeremy Buckingham is not to be part of the cheer squad or I will call him to order. My ruling applies also to Government members. Mr David Shoebridge took points of order with regard to other members speaking to the motion; I invite him to speak to the motion. If he wishes to move a motion about the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps or the Liberal Party he obviously has the capacity to do so. However, I invite him to speak to the motion about Ms Lee Rhiannon.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President, I respect your ruling.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Trevor Khan): That is a good idea.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I do—whoever is in the chair, regardless of the personality. As I said, this motion is an attempted character assassination of a woman who fundamentally and positively changed politics in this State. It was her campaigning on the corrupting influence of corporate donations for more than a decade in this place that put the spotlight on the kind of corruption that we are seeing exposed in the Independent Commission Against Corruption currently.
It was her brave and courageous campaigning against politicians’ perks that so offended the club in this Chamber when she first stood up and spoke about it and, in the face of a deeply hostile Chamber, pointed out the gross abuse of alcohol and how alcohol was being consumed by members who then came into this Chamber under the influence of alcohol and pretended to exercise their public office. It was a courageous and principled stance, for which she took enormous personal attacks, because she realised that the club had lost touch with the people of New South Wales. There were disgraceful examples of a former President being so clearly inebriated in this Chamber that he could not make effective rulings on issues raised in debate. The silence of the rest of this Chamber at the time, the refusal to take on board that destructive alcohol-driven culture, was only stopped when Senator Lee Rhiannon stood up here and said, “Enough is enough”.
The people of New South Wales pay members to exercise their public office; they saw the Chamber reduced to those lows and the club defending its own, regardless of the kind of abuse of office that was happening. Lee Rhiannon’s courageous politics is what offended people, right there and then. That is why the anger is so deep against Lee and the courageous stance she has taken. It was Lee Rhiannon, in her long history in politics, who stood up for peace and non-violence. She has a proud history of standing up for peace and non-violence, like the great bulk of Australians who now look back on the Vietnam War as an appalling misuse of our military, as a betrayal of those conscripts and soldiers who were sent to fight a grossly brutal war, using illegal methods with an ally who was unrestrained in its carpet bombing of neighbouring countries, in its napalming of villages and in its “kill a village to save a village” brutality in that war.
It was the likes of Lee Rhiannon who stood up and said that peace and non-violence need to be the principles not just for our country but for how we behave in international relations. For taking that courageous and principled stance she is sullied in this Chamber. It is a comprehensive and deliberate misreading of history and a comprehensive and deliberate attempt to attack the character of a woman who for decades and decades has been on the right side of these issues. She campaigned, as one of the founders of AidWatch when she was looking at how Australian taxpayers’ dollars were being abused in the aid budget, to ensure that every dollar that went from this country to assist those in need in other parts of the globe was being spent on helping people in need and not being siphoned off into the pockets of dictators and large multinationals.
It was Lee Rhiannon and hundreds and hundreds of other women who protested against Australia’s involvement with the United States in Pine Gap and how Australia was complicit in what was, and what continues to be in large part, a so-called nuclear deterrent—an escalation of violence that we have seen in the nuclear age, which risks our very survival. They had the courage to stand at Pine Gap and say that it is madness that we continue to build and multiply weapons of mass destruction that could end all civilised life on the planet. That campaign, consistent with decades of campaigning on peace and non-violence, is something that this Chamber should take pride in—that one of its members had such a courageous history of campaigning.
When we look at the history and the contributions of Lee Rhiannon throughout her political life, when we look at the changes she has driven in the political culture in New South Wales—changes to the politicians’ perks and the abuse in this Chamber—we see they have had a real impact. We do not see the kind of alcohol-ridden debates that occurred a decade ago when Lee first belled the cat. Why not? Because Lee Rhiannon had the courage to take it on and change it, and she changed it for the better. We have seen now for the better part of six years a ban on property developer donations in this State because of the courageous campaigning by Lee Rhiannon. We have seen more recently the efforts that politicians from the Coalition have continued to make to get around that ban, because they so want to be the recipients of those kinds of corrupting money-for-favours donations that have so riddled New South Wales politics for years.
Who was driving the campaign to ensure that property developer donations moved from the centre of politics in New South Wales to the far right fringes of politics in New South Wales? It was Lee Rhiannon, and that is a change for the fundamental good. Who has highlighted how major parties for decades received money from tobacco and then failed to take the obvious steps to reduce the deaths being caused by that murderous industry? It was Lee Rhiannon and her courageous campaigning in that regard. This is a woman whose political contribution to this State and this country is infinitely greater than that of the Government Whip and others who seek to bring her down and who seek to attack her political career. They are embarrassed by her achievements; they are embarrassed by their failings.
This motion was brought on at the high watermark of media coverage of the ICAC hearings exposing the continued grubby connections between the Liberal Party and property developers: business as usual in New South Wales—the kind of business as usual in New South Wales that Lee Rhiannon courageously stood up to try to change, in part. She continues to do it in the Senate. She is a woman who is worth 100 Peter Phelps and I oppose this motion as any person of goodwill would.
