Page 132 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have looked for restorative justice in our system and for an expansion of that, but how do you have restorative justice when you are trying to implement sensible, effective measures to test people for driving motor vehicles when they have taken drugs? The Labor Party are the party that described random roadside drug testing as “redneck”. They did not support random roadside drug testing. So you can have restorative justice, but if you do not have natural justice, if you are not prepared to support people who are going to be injured or killed through the reckless action of operating a vehicle whilst under the influence of drugs, it is difficult to see that this government have any credibility when it comes to issues like restorative justice.
People entering the restorative justice process must have confidence in the legal system. They must have trust in those who are managing it. How can anyone in that circumstance have great trust in this government when the police minister has had to stand down because their office is being investigated? How do people have confidence that this government is committed to restorative justice when Labor Party senior staff are being investigated by police—the staff of the police minister are being investigated by police? Where is the restorative justice in that?
Where is the restorative justice when we see the organisation that funds the government, both the Greens and the Labor Party, being investigated by the police? I am referring to the CFMEU, which is being investigated, and it funds the Labor Party and the Greens. Where is the community safety and the justice in that?
Ms Porter: A point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MR HANSON: Stop the clocks, please.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: A point of order, Ms Porter.
Ms Porter: Madam Assistant Speaker, I also raise a point of order on relevance. The discussion that Mr Hanson is going to now is certainly way out of the ballpark as far as this motion is concerned.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. Mr Hanson, please remain relevant to the motion.
MR HANSON: Certainly, Madam Assistant Speaker. There are many more points I could make. I have probably made my point. It is all well and good to come into this place and talk about a restorative city as an intention and a design. We on this side of the chamber support restorative justice. It has been applied for a long time in the ACT. It has been supported by both sides of the chamber. Without anticipating a debate, we support, in broad, the steps towards this being rolled out into the adult system.
But let me make it very clear that it is only one part of our justice system. As it says in the motion, it is part of the ACT’s vision for safer, connected communities. But if that is where the effort is applied, without having the courts working, without having the police properly resourced, without having the DPP resourced and without having a legal framework that is adequate to provide protections for people, restorative justice will not work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video