Page 1079 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that in the ACT there is strong support for a very vigorous law, a very protective law, on domestic violence, and that has certainly been the Attorney-General's attitude towards law on domestic violence. Madam Speaker, I believe that Mr Connolly has pursued the issues of domestic violence in the ACT with great distinction. It is the case that we are well ahead of most other States in the protection of women and of children from domestic violence, and that is a matter of which I am very proud indeed. Mr Humphries referred to the black-and-white nature of both Mr Connolly's and Mr Stevenson's politics. I think he drew the distinction between true believers and right-wing misogynists. I am very proud indeed to be on the true believers side in that debate, and I consider that the vast majority of the Canberra community would also be on that side.
Madam Speaker, to conclude, I think that it is a pity that Mr Stevenson has raised this issue as a censure motion. It really does not warrant that kind of a motion. Even if you agreed with Mr Stevenson, the enormity of the matters he complains of is simply not sufficient to warrant censure of a Minister. Mr Connolly has the full confidence of this side of the chamber in his ability to perform his functions as a Minister, and most particularly on the issue of domestic violence and the protection of women and of children. He has performed with great distinction and I believe that he should continue to do so without this kind of motion, apparently on a daily basis.
MRS GRASSBY (4.05): Madam Speaker, I agree with the Chief Minister. It is a serious matter; but I feel, like Mr Connolly, that it was really just an April fool prank. I think that Mr Connolly is a very caring person in every way when it comes to his portfolio, whether it be in respect of single mothers or single fathers. To be accused of what he has been accused of by Mr Stevenson is very serious, because it is not the way the people outside feel. I have heard many people speak very highly of the way that Mr Connolly has handled problems. I agree with the Chief Minister that in the house words often are said that can be taken one way or the other. In the case of Mr Connolly, I believe that he has done his duty in every way that he can in the portfolios that he has. Like the Chief Minister, I believe that he has all the confidence of this side of the house.
MR STEVENSON (4.06), in reply: Mr Connolly mentioned today that his response on the 23rd was heated and aggressive. It was far different from the manner in which he presented things today. Although he did not use the word "threat", on that day he suggested, in his body language, in his vocal tone and in his word "demand", that he was being threatened by these organisations and the people involved in them. He not only called the people involved with putting on the forum "extremist ratbags" but also referred to "hardline right-wing misogynists". As Mr Humphries said, it was not directed specifically at them but it well could be held that they were caught in this net. To call people hardline right-wing women haters was not a reasonable thing to do.
The letter was an invitation to a public forum on domestic violence where all people had an opportunity to present their viewpoint, and that is something that does not always happen in meetings organised by the Labor Party. I might add that in the letter of invitation Mr Williams again and again talked about a balance to be reinjected into the current legal process. He said that he would have to take immediate steps to institute a legal challenge in the courts that would effectively outlaw all domestic violence legislation, and that this would have the effect of leaving many women and children vulnerable and unprotected in the whole Australian community. He said, and this is another relevant point:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .