How can it be that the response of the Prime Minister’s office to an allegation of rape in parliament house was to background journalists negatively about her partner? And that this bullying and re-victimising of the victim did not excite, at the very least, a police or judicial inquiry?
How can it be that childhood victims of institutional violence are able to apply for redress of up to $150,000, but that childhood victims of family violence can only access the pathetic nominal crime compensation payments? (Not that I begrudge for one second the redress payments – it is the stark contrast in quantum that is galling).
How can it be that a footballer rapist who pleads not guilty, but is convicted, gets a minimum of less than four years prison, and yet a drug supplier gets 14 years?
The answers to these questions lie in the failure of the law to change and reflect community values. Take for example, sentencing. The key starting point in determining the prison time for a crime is the maximum penalty – that is parliament’s signal to the court on relative seriousness. It impacts on policing priorities too. The maximum penalty for different crimes shows how stuck in convict days the law really is.
An assault carries a maximum penalty of two years, and so does breaching an apprehended domestic violence order. That places these offences in the same realm as many traffic offences. Compare those to the heinous crime of shoplifting (five years), harassing a police officer (five years) or break and enter (14 years). The unheard-of-in-Mullumbimby crimes of passing a joint from one person to another at a party, or of growing a couple of cannabis plants each carry ten years. A nineteen-year-old was recently found with 120g of psilocybin, and he faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Gulp!
This property/drug law bias exists even in recently amended legislation – like the Bail Act. Effectively, there are a whole raft of offences where there is a presumption against bail. Predictably, breaching domestic violence orders and domestic assault are not included.
So, where are the solutions?
First, let’s cut the sentences and bail presumptions for offences that are just not seen as that serious anymore and which are completely out of whack with community values. I for one would rather be burgled than punched in the face. I’d rather be offered a joint than threatened with violence. I certainly don’t equate a rather mediocre haul of magic mushrooms with murder.
Second, let’s fund the Family Court properly and oversee its functioning so as to avoid the chronic delays. Did you notice how quickly Christian Porter got into the Federal Court for his defamation against the ABC? Imagine if a couple unable to sort out their parenting arrangements could have their issues determined so swiftly. In what parallel universe does defamation trump children? One of the key factors in family violence are the frustrating delays in the court system that lead to the need for self-help, loss of faith in the system, despair, stress and uncertainty. The delays also often favour the most intransigent. It is possible to fund the Family Court to provide timely access to justice if the government truly had the will.
Third, let’s make family and personal violence the priority in the criminal justice system. So many resources are being wasted in unwinnable wars on victimless crimes. How much does it cost to keep someone in prison for 14 years? Enough to pour plenty more resources into supporting refugee resettlement, anti-violence programs, specialist courts, compensation and counselling. And police training too, because arresting the victim happens way too often.
Finally, we need to de-mystify and deconstruct the whole ‘family is sacred’ thing. It is not so long ago that women could not, by law, be ‘raped’ in a marriage. It is only recently that women could take out a loan in their own name, or work after they were married. Truth be told, some families are safe, and some are not. Some families are havens of joy, others are temples of fear.
Returning to the briefing of journalists by the Prime Minister’s office, Peter Van Onselen, Network Ten political editor (and hardly a lefty activist) broke the ground on this story with a telling revelation – he said the Prime Minister’s office was deliberately smearing Higgins’s partner. An internal inquiry was established. Like an episode of [ITAL]Yes Minister really. Not one journalist would tell the head of department who said what because it was delivered ‘off the record’. They were not compelled to provide the information because it was just an internal inquiry.
In my humble opinion, this is one of the great political scandals of our time, typical of institutional response to allegations of sexual assault – first deny, then call the complainant names (‘lying cow’), then call into question her motives, then attack her loved ones. This, from the office of the Prime Minister no less. If they can hold Royal Commissions into pink batts, trade unions and even oil-for-food programs, I’d like to see one that gets to the guts of this disgrace – because it goes to the heart of how we, as a society, respond to personal violence.
David Heilpern is a recently retired magistrate and the author of several law-related books, journal articles and reported judgments.
He was the youngest magistrate in Australia when appointed in 1998.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
