Page 2794 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Petitions
The following petitions were lodged for presentation:
Courts—judicial appointments—petition 23-22
By Mr Hanson, from 2194 residents:
To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory
Reason for this Petition
The following residents of the ACT draw the attention of the Assembly concerns at the lack of transparency and current due process undertaken in appointments to the Judiciary with fears of inappropriate representation of unelected groups in consultation and open to political influence. Currently a closed shop/boys club with no transparency.
Requested Actions
Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly to call upon the Government to commission an independent review to investigate concerns of undue influence from non-elected bodies and persons, and political directions and influence in appointments. Recommendation to consider a Board for appointment for inclusion of community expectation - coroners, ACT Policing, DPP, emergency services, first responder, social work and community care and other key community organisations.
Courts—judiciary—petition 24-22
By Mr Hanson, from 2446 residents:
To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory
Reason for this Petition
The following residents of the ACT draw the attention of the Assembly there are significant public concerns that our judiciary are unable to unwilling to apply the intent of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 and the Common Law precedence (Veen v The Queen 1988, Muldrock v The Queen 2011) where equal weighting of the 7 purposes for sentencing need to be considered. Sentencing is not meeting community expectations.
It is considered if this non-application of sentencing practices is due to their own legal and personal bias, prejudices or political persuasions then they should be considered unfit for office and removed from their position by the Attorney-General. There are concerns the sentencing is influenced by lack of capacity and services available with ACT Corrective Services.
If the Attorney-General does not wish for a review of the performance of the judiciary due to his own legal and personal bias, prejudices or political persuasions then he should be considered unfit for office and removed from his position by the Chief Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video