Russell Broadbent, a moderate Liberal member of the Coalition made a magnificent speech in the House of Reps on Monday, arguing for fairness and humanity. Along the way, he made it very clear what he thought of the Member for Dawson (a coalition colleague of his) for his recent speech on the perils of Islam.
The right wing George Christensen fired back, attacking Broadbent as elitist.
Joint party meetings should be interesting in the next few weeks!
This was my letter to the SMH
To the Editor
George Christensen criticizes Russell Broadbent as being elitist because Broadbent suggested members should lead discussion, rather than being slaves to the views of their electorate. (George Christensen hits back at elitist coalition colleague Russell Broadbent over Islam speech SMH 8 November)
To Christensen, this was anathema, but I wonder what part of his electorate, George Christensen represents?
Christensen won the seat of Dawson at the last election by a narrow margin, does he represent the views of those who voted against him?
There were probably, a sizable percentage of people, who; whilst voting for Christensen, did so along party lines. Many of these people may not agree with Christensen’s more extreme views, does George Christensen represent these people?
It is highly possible, most people in Dawson do not agree with Christensen’s rants against Islam, gay marriage etc.
The fact that for the past two elections, Christensen has lost ground in his own electorate, lends weight to this argument.
I wonder who is being most “elitist” George?