Bereaved families gathered in the public gallery of the ACT Legislative Assembly yesterday morning to watch Liberal MLA Jeremy Hanson table Tom McLuckie’s three petitions calling for tougher penalties for grievous and reckless motor crimes and reoffenders, and for an independent review of the ACT’s judiciary sentencing and appointments.
But they left in tears, distraught by the government’s rejection of their plan for an independent review, and by Chief Minister Andrew Barr’s apparent refusal to acknowledge their presence.
The Chief Minister apologised during question time today.
- Thousands of Canberrans sign McLuckie petitions for judicial and criminal reform (7 October)
- Tom McLuckie campaigns to ensure son Matthew didn’t die in vain (13 July)
Mr Barr “totally ignored the families of the victims of motor vehicle offences”, Mr McLuckie posted on Facebook.
Mr McLuckie and his wife Sarah Payne stated that Mr Barr turned his back to the families, which no other MLA did, and spoke only to the Speaker.
“He did not once mention those present, or express any form of understanding or empathy,” Mr McLuckie wrote.
“He has never once offered his condolences or acknowledged our presence, but tried to accuse Jeremy Hanson, who sponsored my petitions, as trying to politicise the issue of community safety, and not being prepared to compromise.”
“Not once, NOT ONCE! did he go anywhere near acknowledging that he was in a room with people whose lives have been torn apart by vehicular crime during his time as leader of the ACT Government,” Ms Payne wrote in another post.
Their son, Matthew, 19, was killed in May, in a head-on collision with a stolen car being driven on the wrong side of the road. Since Matthew died, the grieving father has campaigned for an overhaul of criminal laws to make the ACT’s roads safer.
After the event, Mr McLuckie told journalists he was disappointed with the Chief Minister.
“Politics isn’t just about the good times and your policies that are successful; it’s about addressing them when they’re not successful. That’s my challenge. There’s a systemic problem with the justice system, and he’s put his head in the sand.”
Ms Payne noted that other politicians – Mr Hanson and Elizabeth Lee from the Canberra Liberals, Labor backbencher Dr Marisa Paterson, the Greens’ Shane Rattenbury (“to some extent”) – began their speeches by offering their condolences.
“These politicians looked at us, welcomed us, thanked us for being there, and I strongly felt their compassion. It was clear to me that they, too, had been touched by our losses, and compelled by the commitment Tom has shown towards campaigning for safer roads.”
When she left the chamber, Ms Payne yelled: “Mr Barr – you did not even acknowledge us!”
“We all then stood together in the lobby; the victims were all in tears, and I was shaking with distress. I was, and still am, in disbelief, that we were so deliberately and blatantly ignored by our Chief Minister, especially as he was presented with such an easy opportunity to offer sympathy on behalf of the ACT Government.”
“The total disregard of our Chief Minister, and his clearly evident lack of empathy for anyone other than those who agree with him were truly shocking,” Mr McLuckie stated. “This is our current leader of the Territory.
“Everyone of us present felt insulted and diminished. We plebs should know our place than to question the almighty and feel his wrath.”
Chief Minister apologises
Mr Barr apologised during question time today.
“I made a mistake yesterday in not explicitly acknowledging the presence in the chamber — for Mr Hanson’s petition and a no confidence motion in the Attorney-General — of those families,” Mr Barr said. “I unreservedly apologise for not acknowledging them explicitly, and I will seek to learn from that mistake.”
Asked whether he would meet the families, Mr Barr replied:
“I understand the families have stated publicly that they do not wish to meet with me. I understand and respect that position. I acknowledge that not explicitly referencing them yesterday would not have enhanced their desire to meet with me. I acknowledge also that there are irreconcilable differences in relation to the outcomes being sought through the petitions that were tabled yesterday.
“I acknowledge that I have an in-principle objection and I will never support mandatory sentencing, or indeed a US-style approach to the appointment of judicial officers. I have been clear on that, and I would not seek to sack the Attorney-General in the terms in which the petition asked me to do, and I was very clear about that yesterday.
“What the Assembly resolved in the policy debate in the afternoon, that I referred to in my remarks yesterday, sets a pathway forward. I understand that ministers will continue the work that they have already started to address some of the concerns that have been raised. But, as has been extensively canvassed, there is not universal agreement on this matter. I acknowledge that, but I also stand by the principles on which I stood for this place, and have been elected to this place on multiple occasions. So I cannot support what was contained within those petitions.”
McLuckie: “Chief Minister should read our petitions”
Mr McLuckie acknowledged and thanked the Chief Minister for the apology, but maintains his position was misrepresented.
“I am VERY confused as to his then random waffle afterwords which seems to be referring to someone else’s petitions,” Mr McLuckie wrote on Facebook.
“Maybe if he actually read the petitions, he would realise we are asking for sentencing guidelines, not minimum or mandatory sentencing. The Justice can still have the autonomy to apply the [principles] of sentencing while considering the guidelines.”
Addressing Mr Barr’s “fear” of American-style judicial officers, Mr McLuckie questioned “why we allow our Government to unduly influences appointments”. Mr Rattenbury had explained that permanent vacancies in the judiciary were filled through a public selection process, involving a selection panel including representatives of government and the judiciary. “So no possibility of undue or political interference US style there then?” Resident Judges and the Chief Justice were suggested or nominated by “key ACT stakeholders”, and appointed after consultation with the Attorney-General.
“Maybe Mr Barr should read the petitions and his own legislation for the appointment process which clearly will be something that in [principle] he would object to and want to change before making outlandish allegations,” Mr McLuckie said.
Rattenbury: Government is listening
Mr Rattenbury stated yesterday that the ACT Government was “trying to be as respectful as possible while recognising there’s also a fierce public debate going on”.
The Attorney-General and Chris Steel, minister for transport and city services, met the bereaved families a couple of months ago, a meeting sponsored by the Victims of Crime Commissioner at their request.
Last week, he wrote to Mr McLuckie, indicating the government was about to announce the Law and Sentencing Advisory Council.
- ACT Government to set up law reform council (7 October)
“I wanted to make sure that he got the information personally and directly, not just through the media.”
Mr McLuckie’s petitions will be forwarded to Mr Rattenbury and Mr Steel, the Attorney-General said. The ACT Government will formally respond to these petitions within three months.
“I understand these families are in terrible pain,” Mr Rattenbury said. “These are terrible incidents, and there’s an enormous amount of emotion around them. The government is working on these issues…
“But I want to be very clear to the families: We are listening to you. We are looking at these issues carefully. We may not respond exactly the way you’re describing, but we are looking to address the concerns that you’ve raised and make sure that we think through them in a careful way that responds to the concerns and maintains the integrity of the justice system.”
Mr Hanson promised to “keep up the fight on behalf of the children who have died and their parents who were with me today… I am inspired by their passion and their determination to make our justice system better for victims of crime.”
