Ms BADGER question to MINISTER for POLICE, FIRE and EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Mr ELLIS
You were exposed on the national stage by Media Watch for ignoring your police commissioner’s advice on firearms reform, dismantling the Firearms Advisory Committee and stoking threats to the media when a journalist asked a reasonable question about the link between owning many firearms and being a target for theft. Your response was disrespectful, you wrongly accused the journalist of victim blaming, then attempted to whip up gun trolls by provocatively sharing the exchange on your social media. This behaviour is well below the standard expected of a minister. Consequently, the Media Union wrote to the Premier seeking an apology to the journalist. Minister, will you finally, today, apologise for your behaviour towards the journalist, and will you acknowledge the clear link between owning multiple firearms and being a target for criminals?
ANSWER
Thanks Speaker, and probably to provide an update to the member, we already provided an apology to the journalist –
Ms Badger – For your behaviour, or did you gaslight them?
Mr ELLIS – Particularly in relation to the moderation and we’ll absolutely take that on the chin. We could have done more in terms of moderation and we accept that.
Ms Badger – That wasn’t the problem.
Dr Woodruff – You didn’t apologise to the journalist.
Mr ELLIS – I know there are challenges in the modern world moderating those sorts of comments, and certainly –
Mr Willie – It wasn’t just the moderation.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – Order. In case the message hasn’t got through this morning, interruptions are disorderly. I cannot put words in the minister’s mouth, and he might not give you the answer that you want, but as long as he’s being relevant to the policy area, he’s being relevant. If you disagree with what he’s saying, there are other forms of this House that can be used, but I ask that the ministers, or the Premier, be heard in silence, please.
Mr ELLIS – Thanks, Speaker. As we reflected, there are definitely opportunities to do better. But, I don’t know if the member has ever met someone who’s been tied up with cable ties, dragged along the floor and had their all of the skin on both arms ripped and burned off them. I don’t know if the member has met with someone who was hogtied and dragged outside in the middle of a freezing Tasmanian night, a 76-year-old man and he’s very lucky to be alive despite that exposure. I don’t know if you’ve met with someone who has had their house burned down, that’s the property that they have raised their children, that they weren’t insured for, and that the community has rallied around –
Ms BADGER – I am just going to call relevance, honourable Speaker.
The SPEAKER – The minister is being relevant. He’s on the policy area.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – Order. You have a supplementary question. The Greens also have another question. I cannot put words in the minister’s mouth, but he is being relevant to the relevant policy area. The honourable minister has the call.
Mr ELLIS – Look, I don’t know if you met someone who’s lost a medal for bravery in an act of violence, but someone who so clearly deserves it, not because he’s a perfect person, but because he’s an ordinary Tasmanian who stepped up to save lives in a moment that really mattered.
Dr Woodruff – Shame. Shame on you, for weaponising someone.
The SPEAKER – Order. Dr Woodruff, this is your third warning.
Mr ELLIS – That man’s name is Grant Whelan, and I’ve met with him. He’s a constituent of yours and constituent of Ms Butler’s. He’s a good man –
Ms Badger – And a long-term friend, I know Grant very well. This is really disrespectful, and I hope he has given you permission to talk like this about it.
The SPEAKER – Honourable member for Lyons, Ms Badger, this is your first warning.
Mr ELLIS – Absolutely, I feel for him, and I think many members in this place would recognise the desire to jump to his defence because he’s a law-abiding citizen and he’s been the victim of a terrible crime.
Now, could we have done more for moderation? Absolutely.
The SPEAKER – Honourable minister’s time has expired.
Supplementary Question
Ms BADGER – The question is pretty clear: will the minister apologise to the journalist for his behaviour? Not ‘has the government media unit apologised for not moderating comments on social media?’
Mr ELLIS – I think I’ve outlined the circumstance in which a good man found himself in, and yes, he happens to be a firearms owner. He’s also a motor vehicle owner and his motor vehicle was stolen, and we wouldn’t treat people who have their property stolen with a lack of regard when we ask the question. The first question is, is he okay? Is he doing all right? Is he getting the support that he needs?
Ms BADGER – I’m going to call the point of order on relevance. This is definitely nothing to do with the supplementary question, which is very clearly about the questions to the journalists.
The SPEAKER – I draw the minister to the questions.
Mr ELLIS – I didn’t receive a question, ‘Is he going okay? Is he being supported? Does he have what he needs?’
Members interjecting.
Mr ELLIS – I had a question about what he owned and, having met with Mr Whelan, I’m sure you can understand my response because, regardless of whether you own firearms or vehicles or power tools, if you’re a victim of crime, our focus should be on supporting you.
The SPEAKER – The minister’s time has expired.
Ms Badger – Will you apologise to the journalist?
The SPEAKER – Order. As I said before, you may not agree with the minister’s response. There are other forms in this House that you can do, including a substantive motion. There are further questions. You can raise it on MPI, you can do it on Adjournment. But if the minister is being relevant to, you know, if you do a lot of preambles in your question, you allow a lot of latitude for a response as well. So, if you don’t agree, the House has the power to do what it wants to do.
