Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Hansard source

The gentleman here is interrupting me rather rudely. I must take his interjection. He said, 'We've sacrificed four,' and he's dead right. There is a sense that we've sacrificed our people and you haven't sacrificed anyone, and now it comes to your sacrificing you're saying, 'No, no, no.' That is a very strong and valid argument. I take his interjections and regard them very seriously.

When the Prime Minister said—I don't know what exact words he used to describe the two Greens—I interpreted him as saying they must go. I said, 'No, no, no,' as the second-longest serving member of parliament in Australian history. You don't know what's in your own cupboard. You never, ever say that. Bjelke-Petersen, whatever his shortcomings, would never have made that mistake. There was a whole lot in the cupboard. I am different to everyone else here. I spent two days on the weekend in the electorate of the member for New England. People there were enraged that they had to go back to the polls and that they had to fool around with this stupidity. They expressed their opinion by saying, 'Barnaby should have been left there. He shouldn't have been touched, and we're going to vote for him.' I don't detract from the popularity that the member for New England undoubtedly enjoys in his electorate, but if I were to name three of the best people in this parliament—I hope I'm not embarrassing them or giving them the kiss of death—the member for Forrest, the member for Mayo and the member for Kooyong would be three of the best people I have worked with in this parliament over a quarter of a century. That they should be subjected to what the Deputy Prime Minister was subjected to is unthinkable for me. I just want this to stop. Every Australian wants this to stop.

For me, personally, it's very simple. I have drafted legislation for 45 years of my life. There would be nothing very difficult about drafting legislation to overcome this problem. But there is legislation before us, and I've just got to make a decision about whether to go with what has been proposed by the people in the ALP or not. It is seldom that I agree with the honourable Leader of the Opposition, but in this case the proposition that is being put forward, as I understand it, is that no-one gets referred without a bipartisan approach. I don't want anyone to be referred. These people were elected in the last election. Three of them I know very well. They are decent Australians and outstanding examples of Australians, and they should not be subjected to this. If we decide that both sides have got to agree then it is my own opinion that no-one will be referred and then we can go on and govern Australia. If you don't go to that outcome—and you haven't got a better outcome that I have seen—then this is going to roll on for another three or four months. You people who are in government take the brunt of it. You're the government; you get blamed. If it just rolls on, no matter whether the ALP have been naughty boys or the Liberals have been naughty boys, it'll just roll on and roll on and roll on, and the respect the people of Australia have for us, which is at an all-time low, will go even further down.

I don't think it is fair. I agree with the interjections that the honourable frontbencher is saying over here. I don't think it's fair that these people sacrificed four of their people. There is no way in the world that I would have sacrificed them. I would have stood up and come up with legislation and tried to protect them, and I would have told the Labor Party: 'If you think you're honourable, just wait and see!' But both sides sought some political advantage and all I can say is please, fellas, let just stop here, now. The proposition before the House is that from now on no-one gets referred unless both sides agree. As far as I'm concerned, that means that no-one will be referred, and we can go on with what we're paid for, which is to govern Australia.

See this speech in context