Dr WOODRUFF question to TREASURER, Mr ABETZ
[11.06 a.m.]
You just told the House that members of this place should not be advocating for policy change on matters where they have a direct business interest. Do you then agree that as a self declared firearms dealer, the member for Lyons, Mr Di Falco, should not be advocating against changes to firearms laws, changes that will directly affect his business – or are you a shameless hypocrite, Treasurer?
ANSWER
You can always bet on a really nice question from the Leader of the Greens, she just oozes sincerity, compassion and niceness – all those qualities she talks about but never practises.
There is a fundamental difference between using an Adjournment speech promoting your business by name, talking about how you serve parmigiana, if I recall correctly, and being generally supportive of a sector. I have not heard Mr Di Falco get up in this place asserting people should come to his dealership or business and using parliamentary time for that purpose. If the Leader of the Greens cannot understand that differentiation, it is a very sad day for the Greens, because their leadership is lacking in that capacity to be able to delineate between that which the member for Clark engaged in and that which the member for Lyons engages in quite rightly and properly. The member for Clark deliberately mentioned her business name a number of times, even claiming she is part of the ‘golden mile’. Do a quick Google search and find out whether the Maypole Hotel is part of the ‘golden mile’. No, not so
The SPEAKER – Treasurer, I draw you to relevancy because the question was not about the member for Clark.
Mr ABETZ – Well, it was about the member for Clark and the member for Lyons, with respect, Speaker, and the differentiation of promoting a specific business as opposed to a business generically in which the member for Lyons is quite rightly and properly involved. Look, I don’t mind if anybody has a side hustle in this place, good on them. Some have farms, some have dealerships, some have a pub, that’s all fine. Some might even go fishing, I don’t know, member for Braddon. That’s all fine, but when you specifically start mentioning your business and telling people why it’s so good, why it’s so popular, and making claims about it which are demonstrably false but trying to boost the business, that is one thing, but to generally talk about that which you have an interest in is fundamentally different and I know the Leader of the Greens knows that to be the case. She must know that to be the case, but in an attempt to denigrate the member for Lyons she has sought to make a comparison, some sort of assertion that they are somehow the same. Clearly different, and I trust that I have contrasted the difference.
Supplementary Question
Dr WOODRUFF – The Treasurer made it clear that he is not prepared to deal with the evidence. Will he accept that the member for Lyons, Mr Di Falco, a firearms dealer, has been advocating for policy change on the position that has been presented from the national reform agenda on firearms changes on caps on firearms? Will the Treasurer check the Hansard and go back and call out the member in the same way he has been disgracefully calling out Ms Johnston on a completely different matter, which had nothing to do with her business? Treasurer, will you check the Hansard and be consistent with your views? Or else call out the member for the Shooters and Fishers Party who is advocating for his own business interest?
Members interjecting.
Mr Di Falco – I’ve opposed the legislation. I don’t want to make money.
The SPEAKER – Order. The only one who has the call now is the honourable Treasurer.
Mr ABETZ – I wish that the Leader of the Greens was able to exhibit the same principled stand and behaviour as the member for Lyons does in this place. She would be a better member if she had the capacity to bring herself to behave like Mr Di Falco does. I ask the Leader of the Greens – and she deliberately avoided the issue – did Mr Di Falco say, ‘These laws are bad and if we do something it will help my competitors and not me?’ No, not at all. It was generic, it was proper, it was within all sense of protocols of decency, unlike somebody who names up their business and says how good it is and why people –
Dr WOODRUFF – Point of order, 45, relevance. Will the Treasurer check Hansard and find out whether the Treasurer is a hypocrite or whether he is actually being dishonest with Tasmanians –
The SPEAKER – Treasurer, you need to sit during a point of order. But the time has expired. Your comment is on Hansard. I’ll give the call to –
Mr ABETZ – Speaker –
The SPEAKER – Treasurer, the time has expired.
Mr Abetz – Yes, I know that.
Members interjecting
The SPEAKER – Order.
Mr ABETZ – On a point of order, if I may. The allegation –
Members interjecting
The SPEAKER – Order. Honourable Treasurer, the time had expired. There are other forms of the House that you can make apart from a point of order. If you think that you are being misrepresented, you could make a personal explanation that is brief and to the point and that does not inflame the comments.
Members interjecting
The SPEAKER – Order, I do not need anyone else to be talking.
Mr ABETZ – On a point of order, if I may.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – Order. I thank all members for their help and assistance. Honourable Treasurer.
Mr ABETZ – If I could get the point of order out.
The SPEAKER – Which number point of order? That’s the question.
Mr ABETZ – The Leader of the Greens will hear it, and she knows that the words she used against me –
Dr Woodruff – Honourable Speaker, what is the point of order? The member is disrupting the Chamber. He doesn’t want to accept the truth. He is being a hypocrite.
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER – Order, Dr Woodruff. Are you asking the member –
Dr Woodruff – He’s being a hypocrite.
The SPEAKER – Order, Dr Woodruff. Honourable Treasurer, are you asking the member to withdraw the offensive words?
Mr ABETZ – Yes, I am. Thank you.
The SPEAKER – Which words are you asking?
Mr ABETZ – ‘Hypocrite’.
The SPEAKER – You took offence to the word ‘hypocrite’?
Mr ABETZ – Absolutely.
The SPEAKER -Right. So, you’re asking the honourable member to withdraw the word ‘hypocrite’?
Mr ABETZ – That’s right.
The SPEAKER – Honourable Leader of the Greens.
Dr WOODRUFF – I withdraw the word ‘hypocrite’ –
Mr Abetz – Unreservedly.
Dr WOODRUFF – Unreservedly withdraw. I ask the Treasurer to look at his actions and to come back and provide us with the evidence.
The SPEAKER – Order. When you withdraw words, Dr Woodruff, you withdraw without further words. For the benefit of all, the Standing Order is 144. Where offensive words are given, the honourable member can stand and say: ‘Under standing order 144, I ask the honourable member to withdraw ‘x, y, z’ words.’ The honourable member will then withdraw the words, but without debate and without further inflaming the situation. For all members, Standing Order 144, please.
