Page 2754 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is what brings us to this motion today. Apart from putting film on the windows, Mr Hargreaves had no idea about his role and what solutions he would put forward. Mr Hargreaves is actually the one who said:
I honestly do not know what Mr Pratt is prepared to offer by way of a solution to this problem. I would be delighted to hear from Mr Pratt, but not by way of interjection.
So Mr Pratt’s response today is quite clearly that we need to have an across-the-board solution to this problem. It is not just an ACTION problem; it is not just a police problem. That is why the purpose is to put a select committee in place, because a select committee would indeed look at the territory and municipal services issues. As I said, it is not just ACTION; it is about how we maintain the perimeter of our road system, indeed the road system itself. There is a police and emergency response to this issue. Youth issues are involved; there are health issues involved; there are Attorney-General’s issues involved, and that is why this proposal is appropriate. We did look at which standing committee it might be sent to, but, because the interests of so many groups are represented in this question, it is appropriate to have a select commission.
I would also like to commend Mr Corbell for what he has proposed as his amendment. I actually think it adds to what Mr Pratt has proposed, and that is why my amendments say, “Let’s not get rid of the selection committee, but let’s marry the two together, have a consensus approach from the Assembly on an issue that we all know is important to people here and to the community.” So I would ask the government, in particular Mr Corbell, to consider adding Mr Pratt’s motion as paragraph (5) to the amendment, because I think at the heart of it there truly is something that needs to be looked at in the terms of the psychological and the sociological reasons that motivate this type of behaviour.
Someone who knows a bit about this has said to me recently that throwing rocks is a sign of aggression. Indeed, it is something that sends an aggressive message but also seeks a response. So we have to get to the root cause of why people—let us face it, my understanding is it is predominantly young males—throw rocks. Therefore, let us go to the root cause of why they are doing this. What is it that is making them feel like they are not part of a society and that they have to behave in this way?
So, well done, Mr Corbell. I would hope that you would seriously look at having a consensus approach to this; that we actually go forward as an Assembly, because that is the best way to solve this problem. Mr Hargreaves, in his challenge to Mr Pratt said, “What would you do? Where are your ideas?” Mr Pratt has put some of them on the table. I will put forward some more ideas that, in doing research, the opposition has been able to come up with. Indeed, the most recent and perhaps the most interesting ideas are actually occurring in south Sydney. Peter Holmes a Court, this time with the South Sydney rugby league player David Peachy is actually putting a social solution on the table. I will read from an article from the Sydney Morning Herald of 16 August this year, Mr Speaker, where it says:
Forget mesh screens, cameras or burly security guards. Down Maroubra way, the most effective strategy against rock throwing has been a coat of paint.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .