One of the saddening, albeit on occasion momentarily amusing (what one friend characterises as 'WTF Moments'), aspects of looking at the way politicians shape public debate about justice is seeing the hyperbole used by people who are sincere & misguided or merely desperate.
Preceding posts in this blog have criticised the South Australian 'anti-bikie' legislation as bad policy and bad drafting, badly implemented but boldly presented.
It is perplexing to see the South Australian Attorney-General's media release [PDF] regarding the High Court's consideration of an appeal by the SA Government against the SA Supreme Court's decision that the legislation was defective.
In the media release the Attorney-General states that "Decent South Australians support the measures this Government introduces to make our streets safer". 'Decent'? Some decent South Australians - including the members of the SA Supreme Court who held that part of the legislation was invalid - presumably have qualms about particular measures. A commitment to justice is not a monopoly of a particular party, faction or profession. The implication that non-support for the measures reflects a lack of 'decency' is troubling. It is possible to be decent, keen on public safety yet not supportive of specific measures.
Mr Atkinson goes on to state that "The challenge is important as the Supreme Court judgment could affect the Parliament's powers in legislating on behalf of the people of South Australia". Indeed. From a constitutional law perspective that is one reason why we have supreme courts: they restrict the legislature from behaving improperly.
One might hope, for example, that the Supreme Court (and the High Court) would deal with an enactment by the SA Parliament that purported to authorise the Attorney-General to incinerate any Victorian who crossed the border without his permission, ordered parents to turn their first-born into catfood or condemned citizens in lifelong imprisonment at the Premier's whim.
Ramping up rhetoric about crime and law enforcement may be an inevitable feature of elections where a Government, as in NSW, is on the nose. However we should be wary about perceptions that the judicial arm cannot and should not deal with defective statutory drafting.
