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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 475 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to take it sideways by saying he is going to look at the relationship between the Territories. Mr Moore is avoiding the issues, just as other members of the Liberal Party have. I am very disappointed in that, because I thought he might be prepared to stand up.

Mr Moore: I was very clear on what my view of mandatory sentencing was. I taught you about mandatory sentencing.

MS TUCKER: That is exactly right, Mr Moore, you did. I said that in my speech. You did not listen either. That was why I was really interested in what you had to say. Once again, Mr Moore is saying what everyone else is saying here. "I do not like this. Everyone vote for me, I am a good person, but I will not speak out on this". Children are dying and are being incarcerated. Women are being incarcerated at a much greater rate. Their children are being left without their mothers, but it is not our business. That is the position that has been put today, and I reject it.

I think I have covered most of the issues put by the Government. There was nothing new. It was all in the original submission. I have explained Mr Kaine's concerns. I would like to seek leave to table this weighty legal opinion on mandatory sentencing, so it is on the record for those people in future who might like to know what went on here.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries talked about Canberra bashing. He said this would be really bad for the Territory. There was an argument about inconsistency. I did address that in my original speech. I am going to have to ask members to read the speech because I realise it is getting late. They can read it in Hansard. I did address the consistency argument. I said that the consistency arguments were a smokescreen. It was another way of not dealing with the issue that we are debating today.

Euthanasia is not the same issue. It was not related to international conventions. SIP is totally different. Mr Moore says it is different. I got information from his office. We know it is different. We know that administrative body which is setting itself up as some quasi-judicial body has not got the right to do that. It is not about that. That is a senseless argument. It is another avoidance method being used by the Government so that it does not have to deal with the issues that I have listed. It is not broad-brush at all, Mr Rugendyke; it is detailed, weighty legal opinion and opinion from all the submissions that have gone to the Senate inquiry. Mr Rugendyke does not seem to want to argue any of the detail, as usual.

In conclusion, I am very disappointed with the response of members in this debate. I had hoped to see a positive outcome. The Government did have the opportunity to reconsider its position. There is such concern in the Australian community. Churches are calling for intervention. Many community leaders are calling for intervention and principled leadership on this matter. That has fallen on deaf ears, and I am very disappointed.

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