Page 2815 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
thoughtful response, and the opposition agrees. What more thoughtful response is there than to get an eminent retired judge or a panel of judges to look at our entire justice system, review it and make sure that it is operating as effectively as it can? What is there that could be a more thoughtful and considered response than that?
If you look at every courthouse, in front of it will be a statue of Lady Justice. She is blindfolded, she has a sword, which represents the decisions she makes, and she has scales, which represent the balance. In every case there is balance. In every case there are decisions that need to be weighed. The problem is that, in that statue, those scales are balanced, but in the ACT they have become out of balance.
As much as the Chief Minister and Mr Rattenbury are trying to assert that this is some sort of political game playing—it is the only prism, it seems, through which Mr Barr views the world—this is the assertion of the frontline police. At the back, there is Troy and Jason. They have lived this and they understand this. They represent 4,000 sworn officers who are out there right now putting their lives at risk. They have spoken of their frustration that the justice system is not being applied fairly—that those scales of justice are not balanced.
We have with us today victims and families representing victims, and they assert the same. They and the AFPA are not calling for people not to be bailed, and nor is the opposition. I agree with Ms Lee that that assertion from the Attorney-General—that to call for a review suggests that the opposition thinks that no-one should be bailed—is an outrageous comment. It is disingenuous. He knows it to be untrue. To think that someone like Tom McLuckie is saying that no-one should ever be given bail is disgraceful. To suggest that the police, who are out there putting their lives at risk, think that no-one should ever be given bail is ridiculous. For the Attorney-General to play that card I think speaks somewhat of the desperation of his position, which has become indefensible.
The Chief Minister talked of compromise, of balance. Well, we see no compromise. What we are asking for is not beyond the wit of men. Mr Rattenbury said, “We could do a review,” but they are not going to. Why not? I genuinely do not get it. I really do not get it. Your police have lost confidence in you. The police have lost confidence in the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General and the justice system. You have victims of crime and thousands of signatories saying, “We have lost confidence.” They are not calling for much here; they are calling for an independent review. Is that so outrageous? They are not saying, “Never bail anyone ever again.” They are not saying that, as much as Mr Rattenbury asserts that. They are asking for a review.
The Chief Minister stands up in this place and says, “We are all about compromise.” He ignored the calls of the police. He did not even mention them when he spoke. He ignored the calls of victims. He did not even mention them when he spoke. He tried to paint this as some outrageous political game playing. It is calling for a review—an independent review. How hard is that? We are going to have motions this afternoon in the Assembly asking for the government to do a review into swimming. We are all going to agree to that, but you will not call for an independent review into the justice system, which your own police say is desperately needed and when your own police have said they have lost confidence in you. Why? Can someone explain why?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video