Page 475 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
stick that under the blotter so that we can try to make something out of it at question time.” That is sad. Your own family!
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (3.56): I have not heard so much humbug for quite some time—and we get a fair bit of that in this place. It is the duty of an opposition to ask questions. That is what Mr Smyth and everyone else is doing. If this motion drags out a lot more information from both sides, well and good; and if it leads to some good outcomes, well and good. Mr Quinlan went on with a lot of humbug. Ted, you talked about dramatisation. I think there was only one word you could seize on there. Go back and have a look through Hansard on similar issues from 1995 to September 2001 and see how much dramatisation we had then.
I heard the Chief Minister going on about the opposition bashing police. That is absolute nonsense. I have been in this place since it started—apart from an absence of 2½ years. I jotted down a number of measures which the Labor Party in its various guises, including you lot, opposed or did not do, which clearly bashed police and clearly did not assist police. You were trying to either stymie legislation that helped police do their job or put up legislation that restricted police in the proper execution of their job of assisting the citizens of the ACT. When we talk about bashing police, let us go right back to the move-on powers. Of course they were objected to and voted against by Labor.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on relevance. The motion is in relation to requiring Mr Pratt, Mrs Burke and Mr Stefaniak to table by 5.00 pm today all information in their possession relating to the claims they have made about the alleged failure of police to attend incidents in Campbell, at the Canberra Show and at Erindale. It is not about the policy position of past or present government. It is about whether or not it is appropriate to do this. I think that, whilst some latitude should be shown in this debate, Mr Stefaniak is simply going well beyond the scope that should be allowed on these issues.
MR SPEAKER: I think this will end up being a wide-ranging debate, Mr Corbell. Your reference to things that happened in the past probably does not add much to the debate, Mr Stefaniak. That is a political comment, perhaps. Stick to the point of the debate—the provision of papers and the reasons for it.
MR STEFANIAK: I raised it because the Chief Minister accused the opposition of bashing police. I will quickly go through those matters. Then we had the debate on drinking in public, which was opposed by Labor. Prevalence of offence was taken out. It has to do with the Chief Minister accusing the opposition in this debate and repeating himself ad nauseam of bashing police.
As to this particular government and its various guises in this Assembly, I do not think I have seen any group bash police or do things which make it harder for the police, such as pass acts that make it difficult for the police and refuse to support bills and motions in this Assembly which would make the legitimate role of the police in trying to combat crime easier. Over the length of all these assemblies, you have systematically introduced measures in an endeavour to stymie the proper role of police. You have done nothing to help.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .