Page 5420 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The other matters are highly relevant because they go to whether this is just an isolated incident that we could be forgiving about or whether this is a pattern of behaviour. And this is the point. I do not think it needed an amendment, but I moved it, because this is about a pattern of behaviour.
There was the jail opening in 2008 where prisoners could not be moved into that jail for six months. And this is a government, this is a minister, that knew that. In April 2010, there were prisoner lockdowns, and the minister came out and said there had been no prisoner lockdowns. He then had to come back later in the day, after further questions were asked, and say, “Yes, there were a number of prisoners in lockdown.” He misled.
He said in 2007, in an estimates hearing, that this jail would have the capacity for 25 years, and I will read you what he said:
The government chose to reduce the scale of the project, and in doing so ensured that the budgeted amount would still deliver a functional, world-class prison facility that will meet the needs of our prisoner population well into the future. Yes, it is less than was originally anticipated, but it still provides us with significant capacity into the future … certainly for the next 20 to 25 years.
Projected planning for the prison in terms of the population—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, there is a requirement that amendments are provided in writing and signed by the member. Mr Hanson has moved his amendment. Nobody else has seen it, and until we see it he should not be permitted to move it. That is the requirement, I understand.
Mr Seselja: On the point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker, Mr Hanson has complied. He has signed an amendment which has been circulated.
Ms Hunter: No, it has not. No-one has got it.
Mr Seselja: It has been handed up for circulation. So he has done all he can.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr Seselja, I understand the point you are making. Please resume your seat. There are two issues at play, members, with this one. The first is that members in the chamber have not received a copy of the amendment as proposed by Mr Hanson. Secondly, the continuation by Mr Hanson in his speech did not address why the amendment was a valid amendment, it was prosecuting the case for an extension of the liberty, if you like, to range across a range of subjects which presumed that that amendment had been successful.
I am going to rule in favour of Mr Corbell and ask you to not address the content of that amendment, had it been moved successfully, because it has not been put before the house. If you wish to continue the rest of your speech, I will ask you to come to the subject and not range past it as your amendment now allows you to.
Mr Seselja: Sorry, on your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, just to clarify, Mr Hanson has moved an amendment which expands the terms of the motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video