Page 3893 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MRS JONES (Murrumbidgee) (4.58): I need some guidance, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will speak to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. I want to move my own amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. If there is then further discussion, I am happy to close later but if there is not, I am happy to close now.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Pettersson): I am in your hands.
Mr Rattenbury: I think we need to see the amendment to decide if it is—
MRS JONES: It is on your desk. It should be. I circulated it before we started on this motion.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mrs Jones, why don’t you just move your amendment?
MRS JONES: Okay. I move my amendment to Mr Rattenbury’s amendment:
Omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute:
“(b) report back to the Assembly on how the Minister will resolve the issue of proximity to the men by the last sitting week this year.”.
I go back to what Mr Rattenbury said in his speech. Mr Rattenbury said about the reports that I have had from women inside the centre, “I am sure it was distressing.” He is sure it was distressing, but what? Is it that he is sure it was distressing to see your own attacker? Is it that he is sure it was distressing, but tough luck? That is the effect of the actions of the minister because he does not have a plan and has not enunciated a plan to stop this situation from being in existence. He is sure that that was distressing, but what?
Minister Rattenbury is very good at saying with his mouth that he cares about something, but his actions show otherwise. His actions are not resolving the close proximity of the women to the men, which means that matters like this can occur. It means that this woman’s story is valid, and I will take it as valid. I will not assume it is invalid. If it is valid, it should be resolved. Minister Rattenbury likes to come in here and call my stories colourful. Well, I am sorry if the lives of the women in the AMC have been colourful, Mr Rattenbury. I am sorry if this does not make him comfortable. I am sorry if he finds it difficult to come here and discuss this topic again and again. But I, as the shadow minister, am not satisfied that there is a resolution anywhere in the pipeline.
The minister talks about a plan for women that is under construction, but he does not say what this plan will achieve. Will the plan achieve the women being housed not in close proximity to the men? Will the plan resolve men being able to see the women when they are being escorted around the facility? Unless it does, it is not resolving the fundamental issue that I have brought forward in this motion to discuss.
I probably do not need to explain too deeply that I am disappointed with the amendment. Is there no plan to fix the close proximity? They have been in here for a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video