Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This urgency motion does a couple of things, and it's important to recognise that it calls on the government to act to end gendered violence, It also calls on the government to establish an independent inquiry into the Attorney-General's fitness to hold the position of the first law officer in this country. Seventeen per cent of women in Australia have experienced sexual violence. Sixteen per cent of women have experienced sexual violence from a man they know. Eight women have died this year alone—it's March—from violence. But it's not good enough to stand here and read out statistics as the minister just did then. It's about action and it's about leadership. That is why this parliament is calling on the Prime Minister to show leadership in this space.

On the issue of whether we need an independent investigation, let's be clear about what we are asking for. We have heard the Prime Minister—and even the minister, just now, and I suspect some senators who will speak after me—say words like, 'That's a matter for the police and for the courts; let's leave it for the proper processes.' They try to use legal terms, saying to people, 'You wouldn't really understand; this is a really complicated legal issue.' Members of the public understand, wholeheartedly, that police investigations in criminal court proceedings are the best way—in fact, the only way—to determine whether a person should be convicted of a crime and deprived of their liberty. That is the way to do it, to make that decision, to have that test. That is the rule of law that the Prime Minister has referred to on so many occasions. That is the proper process for a criminal conviction. But the rule of law does not prevent the Prime Minister holding an independent investigation into the fitness of the Attorney-General to hold office. That is a different test. It does not determine if the Attorney-General should be criminally convicted. That is not the independent investigation that members on this side of the house have been calling for, and to confuse the two issues does a real disservice to this very important issue and to the importance of the role that the Attorney-General plays in our legal system in this country.

The Prime Minister must give himself and Australians confidence that Christian Porter is a fit and proper person to hold ministerial office—not just ministerial office but as the first law officer of this country. He hasn't even read the allegations that have been made against the Attorney-General, so how could he possibly decide that there is nothing to be investigated? We know that this just won't go away. This isn't something this government can ride out. What the marches showed yesterday is that women will not let this go. We're not talking about one particular case; we are talking about systemic gendered violence taking place in our country.

I've seen people on the other side of politics try to say that the allegations of the Attorney-General are being used to somehow play out the other allegations, other cases, other instances of violence, that have been made against men in this country. That is conflating two very separate issues, but it is important to understand why that is insulting to victims in this country when the Prime Minister gets up there and says things like, 'Let the courts deal with it; let the proper processes deal with this issue.'

Victims in this country know that the court processes don't deliver many convictions. Victims in this country know that court processes eliminate certain evidence, that there is a different test for a criminal conviction. That is why there are low reporting rates. It is why we have low conviction rates. It is why cases of sexual assault through the courts can take up to 40 weeks to be heard. And when the government goes out there and says that the rule of law should be the only way to determine whether an allegation is truthful or not, when it comes to the Attorney-General, when it comes to ministerial responsibility, it dismisses the lived experiences of victims.

This has brought up so many issues for women in this country, so much anger and so many memories of things that people have been through. When I was younger, my friend and I were at a pub and we saw a friend of her boyfriend. This man had a girlfriend of his own. He was well known and well liked. When I walked past him, he grabbed me in a way that made it seem like it was a big joke. But I had to push him off me.

He followed us home and asked if he could sleep on the couch instead of catching a cab. I gave him a blanket and closed the door. My friend went to sleep in one room and I went to sleep in another. I woke up to a sound at my door and this man was half naked in the hallway. He came into my bedroom. I asked him to stop. He did stop but not because I asked him to. He stopped because we'd heard a sound outside in the hallway. It was my friend. She was crying. She was vomiting. She was crying and vomiting because before he came into my room he had gone into her room. She woke up mid-rape.

He left. I called the police. I sat with her until they arrived. I told her she could not have a shower. I gave evidence in court to support my friend. Mutual friends said things like, 'We will let the courts decide whose side we're on.' Parts of my statement were ruled inadmissible because they were prejudicial to the defendant. It was prejudicial to the defence against the charges that he had raped one woman and that he may have tried to rape another. I know what happened because I was there, and I know that sometimes the criminal court system does not find people guilty—even if victims believe the truth of what happened to them. So when the Prime Minister goes out there and says that we will let the courts decide on a matter where a victim is just asking to be believed, then victims all across this country know that they have heard these words before.

Language really matters. It really matters to victims. Words matter. Words matter like the words of Ms Higgins: 'I woke up mid-rape, essentially. I told him to stop.' That's what Ms Higgins said. It was dismissed. It was played down. She said, 'I was made to feel like it was my problem. I was failed, repeatedly, but now I have my voice.' Some words will never leave the victims of sexual assault, the words that they said to try to make it stop, the words that they couldn't get out of their mouths. These words are burned into their brains forever.

They can hear when blame gets shifted. They can hear when accountability is avoided and they can hear when people in this place say one thing but they really mean another. The victims of sexual assault are listening very closely to the language being used in this place, and they have very trained ears. So far, this is what they have heard from the Prime Minister of this country and the Morrison government. The marches were not met with bullets. Liberal politicians are playing politics with this issue. A rape victim was referred to as a 'lying cow'.

How our parliament responds to these allegations is under scrutiny right now. Our words are being dissected, so let's not leave any words unsaid. Let's just not say sorry to victims of sexual assault. Let's not just read statistics out in this chamber. We need to find a way to say to these victims, 'This will never, ever happen to you again.