Page 961 - Week 04 - Thursday, 3 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Belconnen Remand Centre is 10 times worse than Quamby—20 times worse than Quamby. Compared with the Belconnen Remand Centre, Quamby is almost a Taj Mahal. Of all ACT government infrastructure, the Belconnen Remand Centre is, without a doubt and without argument, institutionally the most unacceptable facility that we have, and it must be replaced.
It begs the question: what would the Liberals have done? Six years ago you agreed that it had to be replaced—but you have fought against it ever since because it suits you in opposition to fight against it. You agreed to it in government and you have sought to take political advantage of it in opposition. You have perhaps done a little bit of polling or listened to 2CC. Now your policy is to oppose a replacement to the Belconnen Remand Centre, to oppose the construction of a prison. You are happy to sit back and say that it is really reasonable not to provide a major piece of infrastructure to the local civil engineering industry for construction or employment purposes. You are not worried about the fact that we are now paying for a group of ACT residents in New South Wales.
The corollary of all this is that the Liberal Party does not want to bring that employment back into the ACT. The Liberal Party does not want to bring that economic development back into the ACT. It does not understand that, in exporting our prisoners, we are also exporting employment, exporting economic activity and exporting the need to accommodate and support our prisoners to New South Wales.
What we are doing is appropriate, unavoidable, necessary and reasonable and actually reflects our willingness and capacity to understand and deliver on responsibilities as a government. We will not be driven by the fact that these are always difficult issues politically. There is a truism in politics: there are not many votes in prisons or corrections. But good governance requires governments that are prepared to ignore the downside of doing what has to be done, and to do what is right even when it is politically problematic.
We all know how problematic issues around corrections and prisoners are. But it is poor governance to ignore the hard issues. Today the Liberal Party is saying, “Here is an easy issue politically. There is no downside to rubbishing prisoners. There is no downside to trashing those on the other side of the law. Let us just do that. Let us just do what oppositions do. Let us just oppose. Let us not give any indication of what we would do in government if faced with a remand centre that is beneath Australian standards, is unacceptable and meets no reasonable humane standard for the treatment and housing of prisoners, because we can score some political capital.”
In raising this as an issue which you believe reflects poorly on us in a governance sense, you indicate the extent to which you do not have what it takes to govern. You do not have the capacity to take the hard decisions. You do not have the capacity to look the community in the eye and say to the community, “The treatment and rehabilitation of our offenders is an important issue of government and of governance.” I think you make the case for your own lack of ability to function as a party of effective government.
How puerile are your comments about housing affordability. It is an issue that has affected every jurisdiction in Australia, an issue not of the making of any government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .