QandA: Sexual assault survivor questions lack of Christian Porter inquiry as justice escapes victims
A sexual assault survivor levelled a powerful accusation at the Prime Minister on Q&A as she questioned why a Christian Porter inquiry has been dismissed.
A sexual assault survivor asked a powerful question on Q&A as she accused the federal government of alienating women after calls for an independent inquiry into historical rape allegations against Attorney General Christian Porter were dismissed.
Mr Porter has vigorously denied the claims, saying the alleged incident never happened.
The 22-year-old law student asked the Q&A panel how an inquiry could be brushed aside when the rule of law fails victims.
She said that in the last few weeks “the Government has alienated many women like myself”.
“The Prime Minister has dismissed the possibility of an independent inquiry into the historical rape allegation against Christian Porter, saying it would be inconsistent with the rule of law,” she said. “Most sexual assaults go unreported. Only one in 10 of those reported lead to a conviction. Is it fair to dismiss an inquiry when the rule of law fails victims of assault and rarely brings perpetrators to justice?”
RELATED:Questions over Christian Porter’s fitness to remain in Attorney General role
Australia’s chief legal officer Mr Porter revealed that he was the man at the centre of a historical rape allegation involving a 16-year-old girl in Sydney in 1988, in order to categorically deny the allegations.
Q&A panellist Zed Seselja, federal minister for international development and the pacific, acknowledged that not enough was being done to help victims, adding that there had been a reckoning in recent years.
But in regards to an inquiry into Mr Porter, he said he struggled to see what it would achieve and what the burden of proof would be when the matter has been closed by police and there is no sworn victim statement, no witnesses and no physical evidence.
“I absolutely accept your concerns about victims of sexual assault getting justice through our court system and I think there’s a long way to go,” he said. “But I would argue that we shouldn’t look to address that serious injustice that is still with us by potentially creating another serious injustice and that’s what we’re grappling with and one of the reasons I wouldn’t support such an inquiry.”
However, Professor Kim Rubenstein, legal scholar and citizenship expert, said the issue wasn’t about criminal responsibility. Instead, it was fundamental for democracy that a minister subject to serious allegations be stood aside and assessed on whether they are fit and proper for the role.
“He’s responsible for law reform. He is responsible for initiating and representing the Government in any legal matter, domestically and internationally. So that person, as Attorney-General, is actually not about Christian Porter, it’s about the role of Attorney-General, it has to be beyond repute,” she said. “There are many instances where ministers have been stood down for a range of different reasons.”
A senior investigator or eminent judge would be able to conduct an inquiry and provide information to the community “that may not have come out yet”, she added.
Prof Rubenstein also questioned why Mr Porter had not seen the 31-page dossier sent to Prime Minister Scott Morrison outlining the allegations.
“There’s serious questions of judgement here to the Prime Minister and the attorney not even briefing themselves properly to respond and be aware of the allegations in full,” she said, which received a round of applause from the Q&A audience.
RELATED:Barnaby calls for independent Porter probe
Mr Morrison has consistently backed Mr Porter, asserting that he is innocent, and any different treatment like an inquiry would be “grossly inappropriate”.
He also dismissed claims that it was untenable for Mr Porter to continue as the nation’s chief law officer under a cloud, saying moving him from his portfolio would have no legal basis.
But Prof Rubenstein rubbished the rule of law argument that has been used.
“The rule of law is not just a question of the laws that govern us, because any country, Nazi Germany had a rule of law, but a rule of law in a democracy is about accountability between elections and also about keeping the executive accountable in between elections,” she said. “And every member of parliament is accountable to their own constituency. And so each voter, each active citizen will decide whether they want Christian Porter to be back as their representative. But that’s a separate question as to whether he should be the highest, in the highest legal role in the country.”
Politics needed to be taken out of the discussion, said panellist Fiona Simson, president of the National Farmers’ Federation. The problem that only one in 10 people who go to the police with allegations of sexual assault actually have any legal recourse at all needs to be fixed, she said.
“There was an inquiry in 2020 that the Human Rights Commission put in place. Fifty-five recommendations. Where are those 55 recommendations?” she said. “What about the sexual discrimination act that excludes parliamentarians and judges from sexual harassment when they’re acting in the course of their work? ... We need to actually acknowledge the legal system is failing people who have had sexual violence or sexual assault. We know that’s hundreds of thousands of people.”
The government has launched an $18.8 million anti-violence campaign against the backdrop of rape allegations.
Aftermath of Channel 7 gamble exposed
Seven’s audacious play for an interview with MasterChef judge Jock Zonfrillo’s widow has not paid off.
Jock’s widow asked to reveal how he died
Jock Zonfrillo’s widow Lauren faced some “tough questions” from Liz Hayes in her first TV interview about the MasterChef judge’s death.
9 humiliates Dutton with poor taste stunt
In the war to win election night coverage, Channel 9 blindsided panellists with a gimmick that left them visibly uncomfortable. James Weir tunes in.