Page 2816 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Rattenbury has said, “We are doing a bunch of other things. So do not worry about it.” Is the justice system working so well that a review would not help? Some of the things that he mentioned today are good initiatives and they have had our support. We have had lots of debate in here. I do not say that a review is a silver bullet and I do not say there is not work being done. But is everything Mr Rattenbury is doing so good that a review is not necessary and would not help the debate? Of course it would.
If you have an advisory committee, surely a review could be done by some eminent ex-judge, who could look at sentencing over a period of time, look at bail, examine the data, look at the evidence and provide that report, that review, to government, to the Attorney-General and to that committee. What? That would not help? Of course it would. What is your obstruction to this? I genuinely do not understand. I do not understand.
You have listened to Tom McLuckie, you have read his petitions and you have listened to the AFPA. Do you think they are going to stop? Do you think they are going to stop today? Do you think we are going to stop today? We are not. But we can put a stop to it. Why not? You could stand up here and seek leave to speak again and say, “Okay, you have made some good points. I accept it. We will instigate an independent review. I will adjourn this afternoon’s motion.” What harm would it do? And you say, “We do have the resources to do that.” How much is the budget—$8 billion? When you look at the money that is being spent on a whole range of things, it is ridiculous and disingenuous to say, “Oh, we cannot afford it.”
If it will help restore confidence in our justice system and provide advice and a path forward for the Attorney-General and his committee that he has established, why not? Give me a substantive reason? Go on; give me a substantive reason and I will stop. But if you think I am going to stop—yes, there will be a motion this afternoon, and there will be more motions. Do you think Tom McLuckie is going to give up? No, he will not. Do you think the other victims of crime here are going to give up? Do you think the Federal Police Association representative members are going to give up?
Why not stop this debate right now? Stop it. Just stand up and say, “Okay; let’s end this debate. Let’s do that review.” Do it in a genuine way by appointing someone eminent and someone independent and give them the resources to do it—and this debate will satisfy what we need. It will restore confidence in the justice system and to our frontline police. They deserve it. It will restore confidence to the victims of crime, and they deserve it.
I am just gobsmacked, to be frank, at the refusal to do this. I thank Dr Paterson. I thank you for your comments and I know that you are deeply frustrated as well, as I imagine a number of your other colleagues are deeply frustrated. The community is frustrated. Our police are frustrated. This is not the end of it. Please. I implore you, Attorney-General, to get that review done. Get an independent judge, an ex-judge or a panel of judges to do that review. Let us restore confidence. Do not do it for me; look into the gallery there and think about those frontline officers, think about those families, and think about the families out there who have had their lives wrecked. Do it for them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video