Page 2859 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 11 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
ACT … the community should feel confidence in these decisions – particularly around judgements for serious criminal offences”; and
(d) the Director of Public Prosecutions has conducted a record number of successful appeals that fall “clearly short of community standards”; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to conduct an independent review into sentencing and bail in the ACT.
I can think of no greater heartbreak than losing a child, particularly if it is through a senseless tragedy like that faced by Tom McLuckie and his son Matthew, or Janice Seary and her son Lachlan, or Andrew Corney and his son Blake.
The question that it prompts, Mr Assistant Speaker and members, is: are we doing everything in our power to prevent these heartbreaks from happening in our community? Many of those parents were here today—Tom, Sarah, Amanda, Andrew and Janice. I have spoken with them and you have heard them speak, and what they say is that, following their interaction with the justice system, there is more that needs to be done. There is need of reform.
Likewise, the Federal Police Association have said that the system is not working as it should for their members, our frontline police. The trauma faced by our frontline police who attend these horrific events is something that we should all strive to limit. Again, the question, members, is: are we doing everything in our power to prevent this? The Australian Federal Police Association say that we are not.
What they are asking for, the Australian Federal Police Association, the frontline members, and those parents who were here today, is not controversial. It is not difficult. The Attorney-General, in a debate earlier today, said he could do it. He could do it. He has chosen not to. What they are asking for is something that is simple. It is an independent review of sentencing and bail in the ACT. I would note that this is a government that does many reviews into many different topics. It is beyond the comprehension of those parents and of the police association why this government is being so obstinate in refusing to conduct this review. They simply cannot comprehend it.
After the debate this morning, which substantively focused on the need for that review, because that was the whole purpose and the cause of the no confidence motion, I went outside with those parents, and they were crying. Every single one of them was crying, because they cannot understand why this government is refusing to do everything that it can to prevent tragedies like this from happening.
I do not dispute, nor do they, that this government is doing things. But they do not understand why this government is so reticent, following the traumas that they have faced and have articulated so passionately, to do everything that is in this government’s power. They do not understand that failure to conduct what would be a simple but necessary body of work. I acknowledge that work is being done by this government. No-one is disputing that—
Mr Rattenbury: Oh, really?
MR HANSON: Mr Rattenbury interjects: “Oh, really?” No-one has ever disputed that. We acknowledge that. As shadow attorney-general I supported many of those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video