Page 1658 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We recognised, on inheriting government in 2001, that the Belconnen Remand Centre was simply unacceptable on a number of bases—not just as a government institution that was not fit for purpose, that was scandalous, that was an embarrassment, but which we inherited from the Liberal Party as not fit for purpose, as completely human rights deficient. But that was only half of the equation. Of course, the other half of the equation was that sentenced prisoners were transported to New South Wales, away from the ACT, away from ACT services, away from families. That is the Liberal Party’s preferred position in relation to corrections. The position in relation to corrections of this mob sitting over there today, puffing their chests, is that we should have retained the Belconnen Remand Centre with all its deficiencies. We should have continued to transport our sentenced prisoners to New South Wales, to Goulburn—
Mr Hanson: Show me a quote where I’ve said that, Jon. Show me a quote.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson!
MR STANHOPE: I could get out every Hansard and every press release and every election portfolio since we took government. I still recall Mr Smyth most particularly standing on the site of the AMC, before construction commenced, in a demonstration against its construction. That was prior to the election before last. There is not and has not been a single election since 2000 in which the Liberal Party did not oppose the construction of the Alexander Maconochie Centre. The Liberal Party were totally opposed—not to the construction of an international best practice, human rights compliant prison, with all the philosophies that underpin that, but to the construction of any prison.
Not only that; I think perhaps, if there is a positive to be taken from this newfound interest of the Liberal Party in corrections or in prisoner welfare, the positive is that the Liberal Party have now embraced wholeheartedly the notion of human rights. Having opposed the Human Rights Act, having opposed the need for a bill of rights, at every step along the path of the passage and acceptance of human rights and of a bill of rights in the ACT, the Liberal Party now, late to the game, of course—and this is the great positive; I think we all said this in relation to the conversation around bills of rights and human rights and a conversation around the centrality of human rights in a civilised society—embrace human rights. It is the Liberal Party, the opposition in this place, that are the first always now to stand and demand greater attention to the human rights of prisoners at the AMC. It is ironic, of course, but it is the great positive, and something that actually gives me quite a sense of achievement, that, having been opposed completely and utterly by the Liberal Party in relation to my embracing of a bill of rights and of the Human Rights Act, and having stood opposed by the Liberal Party, it is now the Liberal Party that have become the great defenders of human rights.
I think it is a great case study of a political party that opposed absolutely, root and branch, any notion of a human rights act or of a bill of rights that the Liberal Party are now the first to demand utter adherence to principles of human rights—
Mr Doszpot: So it is just your domain, is it, Jon?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video