Page 2811 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is at stake here, what is essentially being alleged, is that the minister is unfit to be Attorney-General. I disagree. I disagree and so do my colleagues, and the minister retains the confidence of the overwhelming majority of members in this place. Clearly, no minister has the confidence of the opposition: that is politics. But let’s be clear that bringing this most serious motion this morning, ahead of the substantive policy debate this afternoon, is all about parliamentary tactics and maximising media exposure.
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, please! This is a serious matter, so no interjections—
Opposition members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: That includes you Mrs Kikkert and Mr Hanson.
MR BARR: We can and we will have a substantive policy debate this afternoon and set a pathway forward, following this chamber’s thoughtful consideration of the policy matters. If you profess to care about those issues, then you would focus more of your time and effort on those questions, rather than personal attacks on the minister or efforts to maximise media exposure.
I have been around a long time. I have seen this debate more than once. These issues are canvassed in every state and territory parliament in this country, and issues of mandatory sentencing and bail conditions and all of those policy questions are considered in every democracy around the world. That is as it should be. This is a very legitimate debate to have, but let’s focus on the policy issues and the substantive response that the Attorney-General has just put forward, rather than an attack on his integrity or his ability to perform the role.
To be clear again: I have confidence in the Attorney-General. I also have confidence, with 16 years of experience, that this place has the maturity to be able to deal with these issues. Maybe I am still a little naive in thinking that it is possible that all three parties in this place might be able to work together and find agreement in certain areas. I hope that is the case, but that requires good will, setting down your weapons and your political focus and endeavouring to work towards an outcome. The Attorney-General has been very clear in his remarks, not just today but throughout this debate, that he is willing to do that. The offer is there for this to occur. It would be your choice as to whether you take it up.
Mr Hanson, in his contribution, did not reflect the fact that there might be alternative views on these substantive policy issues. This is not an area of unanimous agreement across the community, across the legal profession or in this place, so let’s not try and pretend otherwise. A solution will most likely involve compromise. It will involve thought—potentially, innovation in putting together a response that addresses the issues, the legitimate issues, that have been put forward.
Mr Hanson: A review would assist that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video