Page 580 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is what I am committed to as minister. That is what the government is committed to. There are no grounds at all for this censure today.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.53): I do thank Mr Hanson for bringing the issue of corrections to the attention of the chamber today. I must say that it does have a note of deja vu about it, as it looks suspiciously like a motion we have seen before. Yesterday Mr Hanson brought up standing order 62, around tedious repetition, in relation to a speech from Mr Stanhope. On a number of occasions, with motions and speeches Mr Hanson has put forward in the Assembly, it has been tempting to bring up this particular standing order. I am sure that Ms Gallagher and Mr Corbell, with their portfolios of Health and corrections respectively, wait for each sitting week wondering which of them is going to be censured by Mr Hanson. I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for the ministers, I have to say, because—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order! Mr Hanson! I have spoken. Ms Bresnan.
MS BRESNAN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for the ministers, because I have both these portfolios and pretty well know each sitting week that I am going to have a censure motion from Mr Hanson awaiting me. Mr Hanson has said that the Greens are preventing him from moving censures. Mr Hanson knows that the Greens have supported debate on censures on a number of occasions—actually on many occasions—in the Assembly. It was only with the previous censure that Mr Hanson brought up in relation to Mr Corbell that we did not have that debated. And that was because Mr Hanson continues to put up half-baked repetitive censure motions.
I do not agree with the direction that Mr Hanson has taken with this motion. However, there are some issues that must be looked into, and later I will be moving an amendment that I believe captures this.
We must address whether or not corrections programs are heading in the right direction and whether the sentencing options provided are conducive to rehabilitation. In doing this, we must broaden our conversation about corrections. It is not just about the AMC and how many people we can fit in there; we must start talking about how community corrections plays a greater role in corrections policy overall.
Let me go first to the content of Mr Hanson’s motion. When I do not address the content of a motion I get criticised by Mr Hanson, but when I go line by line I also get criticised. So I am just going to pre-empt. I am going to be going through each part of the motion, so you can tailor your criticism of me accordingly.
On clause 1(a)(i), while the Greens do agree that the Labor government’s opening of the AMC was a well-timed event leading up to the election, this matter has been dealt with now by the Assembly and is widely acknowledged in the public domain.
For clause 1(a)(ii), we have previously dealt with how the AMC’s capacity is defined, in that it depends on the make-up of the prison population and who requires
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video