When I very briefly and greenly worked for two right-wing members of the second Hawke administration, “pissant” was the faction’s put down of choice.
It’s a glorious word, dating from the 14th century (ants with nesting material that smells of urine) but with a modern history as a putdown (an inconsequential, irrelevant, or worthless person, especially one who is irritating or contemptible out of proportion to his or her perceived significance) of less than 100 years.
In the NSW Right, or Centre Unity, of the mid-80s it was normally reserved for those closest to the user, in circumstances where much better was expected of its target – and the pissant knew it.
It can be used also as an adjective, usually a pejorative, a famous example being President Lyndon Johnson’s description of Vietnam.
I can’t come up with a better adjective for the ACT Government’s action in axing the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council after it was allowed to conduct only one (thorough and thoughtful) inquiry.
When it was established in late 2023, I wrote, “The terms of reference … are Rolls Royce, but the resources – three public servants – are Mini Minor. While the council is well constructed and will certainly be well led, it needs more horsepower.” Pearls (25 November 2023)
Less than 18 months later, it’s been taken to the wreckers.
It had all looked so good, at least on paper.
Not only would the attorney-general be giving it references, but the council could bring up its own motions in consultation with the AG. It would give “high-level legal advice” and had the loftiest of aims.
According to its terms of reference, it was to “conduct reviews and research, with a view to the modernisation of the law, the elimination of defects in the law, the simplification of the law, the consolidation of any laws, the repeal of laws that are obsolete or unnecessary and uniformity between laws of other states, territories and the Commonwealth”.
A mini-Law Reform Commission.
As I wrote in Pearls (10 April, 2024), the three workers assigned to the whole project had been overwhelmed inside five months with council chair Beth Campbell coming to rely overly on one council member – and even having to rewrite the minutes of council meetings herself.
The only inquiry conducted was into dangerous driving. It came to pass because of particular media attention, and community sentiment, regarding the victims and families of horrendous driving.
The fear at the time was that the council had been set up only to quiet that attention. The government (then Labor and Green) would be seen to be doing something about the problem.
Of course, the council, which included the acting director of Public Prosecutions and the chief executive of Legal Aid ACT, did a proper, comprehensive job, explaining sentencing practice, bringing out the caselaw and statistics from all Australian jurisdictions in a consultation paper and making measured findings in its report, delivered in September 2024.
I feared the government instead might have preferred to have received a damning report, slagging slack, unelected judges and magistrates who were handing out ridiculously lenient penalties and instead recommending immediate mandatory prison sentences. A nice, quick fix. At least of (some) perceptions.
I have little doubt that a fight-fire-with-fire report would have been expected had the Liberal Opposition won in October, such has been the posturing of its law-and-order brigade, who have successfully kneecapped the moderate Elizabeth Lee since she led them to electoral loss.
Campbell was aware of the dichotomy between true law reform and a considered sentencing regime on the one hand, and community feeling about particular crimes on the other.
In her introduction to her report, she wrote, “I acknowledge that for some, the discussion in this report, particularly about the leniency or otherwise of a sentence, is in the abstract – it is not our beloved family member or friend who has been killed or seriously injured because of another’s actions.”
An ACT magistrate for a quarter of a century, Campbell continued, “I accept that the sentence imposed on an offender cannot right the wrong or compensate for the loss or injury and consequent grief that many families are to endure.
“I do not know if my rational, experienced legal mind could ever overcome the strong emotions I would expect to feel as a bereaved family member. Nor would it allow me to accept any sentence imposed on someone whose actions had prematurely killed my loved one as representing ‘justice’. I am fortunate not to have been in this position.”
But, she said also, “What I hope this report will produce is an improvement in community understanding of the sentencing process and of the administration of justice generally …
“I do not expect the report will change minds as to the appropriateness or otherwise of any individual sentences already handed down by the courts, and nor is that our purpose. I would however hope it might go some way in explaining what a complicated exercise sentencing can be, and that what looks like a straightforward exercise may actually involve balancing many different and competing factors pointing in different directions.”
The clamour surrounding dangerous driving went quiet. The election yielded a Labor Government uncoupled from the Greens – and the ACT’s Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council is history.
Greens leader Shane Rattenbury, who was the Attorney-General, then in coalition with Labor, who brought in the council, blasted the government’s move.
“Last term, Labor tried their hardest to undermine the evidence-based work of the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council. Now it seems, they are finishing the job by dismantling it altogether,” he said on 4 February.
“Before it was disbanded by the new attorney-general, the Law Reform and Sentencing Advisory Council was made up of people with deep roots in our community, from police, academics, First Nations people, victims’ advocates, lawyers and more.
“Now this Assembly committee inquiry set up by the Independents for Canberra and the Labor Party is just going to replace the hard work of these community members with political exposition and hot air.
“A committee inquiry into bail and sentencing run by politicians is not a real substitute for an evidence-based advisory body ….
“Now that sentencing law reform is purely in the hands of politicians, we can expect more ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric aimed at longer sentences and more restrictive bail approaches, rather than responding to evidence-based approaches that encourage rehabilitation.”
Andrew Fraser is the principal of Fraser Criminal Law and has worked in criminal law in the Canberra region for more than 15 years. Before beginning legal practice, Andrew was a journalist for close to 30 years with the Canberra Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, including stints in the Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery. He is also a former news editor, chief of staff and political correspondent of the Canberra Times.