Page 2810 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

heard a lot so far this morning about the alleged character failings of the minister and questions of ideology getting in the way of the administration of the Attorney-General portfolio.

I think what we have just heard from the Attorney-General pretty conclusively rebuts that allegation and that suggestion that Minister Rattenbury is not up to the job or prepared to address the substantive policy issues that are before him, this Assembly and the broader community. From the outset, I need to be crystal clear on this matter that that allegation or series of allegations that have been made against the minister are unfair, unwarranted and do not pass even the most basic test.

What I can say clearly, having worked with Minister Rattenbury for more than a decade, is that he is a considered and thoughtful ministerial colleague. He is someone who is willing to collaborate to achieve results and someone who is willing to look at particular issues from a variety of perspectives. His first instinct is not to jump in and politicise matters in the way that we witness consistently, and I have observed over more than a decade, being in the same parliament as Mr Hanson.

Everyone brings their own style and approach to politics, and that is fine. We all represent diverse communities in this place. It is okay that we disagree on matters of policy, but the motion before the Assembly this morning is one of no confidence in Minister Rattenbury to perform the important role of Attorney-General. I need to be clear that we do not support that. We do not support that motion, and we do not support the arguments that lie behind it.

There are policy matters to debate. That is absolutely acknowledged. We will be having that debate this afternoon in another motion moved by Mr Hanson that goes to the substantive policy issues. That is fair and reasonable and a very good use of private member’s time—to bring a substantive policy issue into this place so that all 25 of us can consider those matters and take a step forward.

That the no-confidence motion has been brought on ahead of that debate tells you that this is all about politics and all about seeking to maximise media coverage of this particular issue. The substance of the policy matters will be debated this afternoon, and if this no-confidence motion had waited until after there might have been a degree of more credibility in relation to it.

This is a pattern of behaviour that we see all the time. A no-confidence motion is the most serious motion that can be moved in this place, and it appears that there is a pattern emerging that is devaluing the most serious motion that can be moved in this place.

Mrs Kikkert interjecting

MADAM SPEAKER: Mrs Kikkert, please!

MR BARR: This debate this morning has been, remarkably so far with a few interjections aside, conducted in a respectful manner, as it should, because it is the most serious thing that can be brought before this chamber.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video