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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 August 2017) . . Page.. 3264 ..


Let me go to some specific points. This is an important point. The minister talked about dealing strategically, holistically and so on. That is all well and good, but when this government needs additional resources for dealing with domestic violence—$30 million—when it gives extra money for dealing with Taskforce Nemesis and when it gave extra money for the courts for an additional judge or an industrial court and so on, there was none of that talk then. It seems now that, because the DPP is short of funding, rather than saying, “Yes, we recognise it as a crisis; we’re going to provide additional resources,” it all has to be dealt with strategically. It seems that there is one rule for the police, one rule for the courts and one rule in dealing with domestic violence and other things—which I support, by the way, in terms of additional funding—but it is very different when it comes to the DPP. It seems to be a very different standard. They have to be looked at holistically and strategically. I did not see much holistic or strategic review when it came to some of those other elements.

I am disappointed that Mr Rattenbury is not supporting this. He made the point that this was something where “Mr Hanson’s approach”, as he called it, was not appropriate. It is not actually my approach. It is your approach, Madam Assistant Speaker Cody, isn’t it? You were on the estimates committee, I believe, as were Mr Pettersson, Ms Le Couteur and a couple of Liberal members. The balance of power on the committee that signed off on that report was from the government side, from those opposite, from the Labor Party and the Greens, who are in a coalition.

To say that this is Mr Hanson’s approach or the Liberal Party’s approach is not the case. All I have done in my motion is put forward, word for word, the recommendations that are in your report, Madam Assistant Speaker Cody, a report of your colleagues on that committee, including Ms Le Couteur, and said, “These are pretty good ideas. This is a good approach. It’s got unanimous support from five members of this Assembly across the three parties. Let’s support it.” For Mr Rattenbury to come in here and say that he is not supporting it because it is Mr Hanson’s approach, when it is actually Ms Le Couteur’s committee report, goes to a broader point: often we will see Ms Le Couteur on a committee, or maybe some of the backbenchers from the Labor Party, in this case Ms Cody or Mr Pettersson, seeing some good ideas coming forward and coming up with a good approach but finding, when it comes back to Mr Barr—

Mr Wall: There was no argument in committee.

MR HANSON: No; that is right. When it comes back to Mr Barr, no. They then try to characterise this as Hanson’s idea. No. I would love to take credit for it, and politicians often do that, but I take no credit for this, no credit at all. I put all the credit for this on Ms Cody, Ms Le Couteur and Mr Pettersson for their excellent recommendations.

Mr Barr: There is a first for everything. If you sit in this chamber long enough, you’ll hear everything.


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