Page 203 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 December 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that. The response to that is being taken very seriously. I know it has been very traumatic for many people in Corrective Services as well who take their responsibilities very seriously.
MRS JONES (Murrumbidgee) (5.58): I rise to speak to the amendment and close. It was interesting to listen to the minister’s response to this motion. Firstly, as Mr Hanson pointed out, it is not a complicated motion or one particularly intended to damage or anything like that. It is just a straight-bat motion saying, “What are all the recommendations that have been made? Which ones have been acted upon and which ones have not?” There are a number of issues, and this is well known.
Secondly, in the last term I came into this place with things that I wanted the minister to agree with, and he said, “You didn’t consult with my office.” This time I consulted, carefully, with his office. Yet still what was experienced by me was a bit on the mocking side, especially because, in the middle of my speech, I actually addressed the fact that I was being laughed at and it continued. So yes, maybe there are double standards. Sometimes we all make mistakes. Sometimes I am sure I make mistakes. But I did not find it a particularly good way to conduct a debate.
Thirdly, I find it unusual that Minister Rattenbury, who has now had this portfolio since January 2016, has not acknowledged any failing. There are failings. They are not just failings of a department; the minister has to take responsibility. He manages to give speech after speech in this place where he essentially says, “It’s complicated.” Nobody is claiming it is not complicated; we are simply asking for clarity on what the recommendations have been, which ones have been acted upon and which ones have not.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly was put and negatived.
MRS JONES: I also ask the question: is it untrue that drugs are coming in over the fence? Yes. Again, I will go back to what I said originally: I do not have the same access as the minister does to what goes on in the prison. That is simply a statement of fact. Yes, I will seek a tour—again—of the facility that I have toured already, and I will seek a briefing. I will be very pleased if the minister is happy to organise it.
It is interesting that the minister describes it as embarrassing that people have got out of the prison. It is not embarrassing. Embarrassed is how the minister feels. It is stressful for the population who live in the area. My grandmother, over 100 years ago, chose not to buy a house near a prison because of fear of exactly the same thing happening. It is unacceptable in this day and age that we cannot maintain the basic security of people.
I am glad to hear that the minister believes that bed occupancy rates are reasonable at the moment. I will be happy to receive some more information about that.
I will, nonetheless, despite the way the debate has been conducted, support the amendment, because I think it is an improvement on the situation that we have got and it does show a certain willingness from the minister to do what perhaps should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video