Page 2873 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
tabled was upsetting. I acknowledge Mr Rattenbury; he did acknowledge their presence in that case. It makes it very hard to have any expectation that the government is going to continue to engage with the community and stakeholders. It makes it very hard for me, and certainly those stakeholders, to believe.
I notice that Mr Rattenbury, when the media assembled outside to talk to the members and the parents who were still there, then got the media pack and said, “No; we are going to go and hide from the members of the community. We will do this somewhere else. I do not want to actually engage with the community. I want to hide from them.” He went and did the media in the courtyard, where he would not have to engage with members of the community.
I find it very difficult to stomach the Attorney-General saying that they are going to continue to engage with the community when this morning Mr Barr refused to do that in a way that caused tears. They were absolutely aghast at his behaviour, may I say; absolutely aghast. And then Mr Rattenbury, rather than going out and confronting where the parents were, got the media pack to move so that he could hide inside the courtyard. We are meant to believe that they will continue to engage with the community. It is hard for anyone to believe, but that is what they are calling for.
I think there is a way that we can have our cake and eat it here, because there is nothing in that amendment that causes me grievous concern. My concern is that it removes the call for a review. There is a way around this. What my amendment does—which I shall move shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker—is add something after everything that Mr Rattenbury said. Mr Rattenbury can have everything he wants. Everything he wants in his amendment, he gets—everything. But what we will do is add to his amendment a simple paragraph that says “calls on the ACT government to conduct an independent review into sentencing and bail”. Then everybody gets what they want.
Mr Barr talked about compromise this morning. What a wonderful compromise this would be. What a wonderful compromise that Mr Rattenbury gets everything he wants and Tom McLuckie, Andrew Corney, Janice Seary and our frontline police people get what they want. Why not go for the win-win? I hear it all the time from those opposite. Why don’t we go for the win-win here? What have we got to lose?
If those opposite refuse to support my amendment then everything that they have said in here in this debate, everything that they said this morning about compromise, about not engaging in political fights, and everything that Dr Paterson said in the community, is rubbish. Let’s support our community. Let’s support our police. I move the following amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, which simply calls on the ACT government to conduct an independent review into sentencing and bail:
Add after paragraph (2):
“(3) calls on the ACT Government to conduct an independent review into sentencing and bail.”.
Question put:
That Mr Hanson’s amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s proposed amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video