Page 2863 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY: I do struggle to see why Mr Hanson is so intent—
Mr Hanson: Is that is your only criticism?
MR RATTENBURY: Now he is interjecting back at me. He always gets so offended by even the slightest thing. As soon as I question him he starts shouting at me across the chamber; it is an extraordinary experience. Mr Hanson is interjecting saying, “If you do not like that, come up with another idea.” I am just reflecting on the fact that I have been trying to work away quietly to get some of this done and think through it, and Mr Hanson gets to his feet and makes things up as he goes. It is no way to do government. It demonstrates why he continues to sit on the opposition benches.
I do struggle to see why Mr Hanson is so intent on doing just one thing, because I think there are a range of important legal matters that will come up over time, and the government is establishing a substantive ongoing body for law reform and sentencing. Despite the exceedingly biased preamble on the motion, he really has not called for much that is substantively different to what the government has already committed to do, and that is the basis of my amendment.
It seems as if he varies from statement to statement with his review of laws or a report card for judges. It also seems as if it varies from moment to moment whether this review is entirely agnostic as to its purposes and is just an objective arm’s-length check-up on the health of our justice system or whether it is an inquisition into every decision part-reported in the media. When justifying a need for the review, Mr Hanson states that the police union has lost confidence and thinks the system is an abject failure; but when called out for calling the justice system a failure, Mr Hanson pretends to have no view of his own, seemingly trying to sell the line that he is just curious and wants to have a look, as if he has no idea of where he might want it to go.
The foundational purpose of the review is as mercurial as Mr Hanson’s own principles. Let me just put the government’s position clearly on the record. We will create and fund an independent body that will provide open advice and recommendations to government for policy consideration. This body will consider judicial decisions but will not usurp the roles of the judicial commission nor the appellant system in telling the judges that they are wrong from moment to moment. Any matters inquired into by this body will be clear as to their purpose. They will not oscillate between being targeted one minute, and then personal, agnostic and over-minded the next. I am sure that I will get some free feedback on that!
Much of the commentary has suggested that the ACT justice system is lenient compared to other places in Australia. I always endeavour to retain an open mind and consider arguments that have been put forward, but the evidence simply does not support that assertion. The evidence says that in the ACT an offender found guilty will get a custodial sentence 19 per cent of the time. That proportion is the fourth highest out of eight Australian jurisdictions. Out of those custodial sentences, 62 per cent are for full-time imprisonment. This places us again as the fourth highest in the country.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video