A Clash of Symbols

Full story here

Hmm. Sounds ominous.

Oh dear. I take it that this will shortly lead to the downfall of the O'Farrell government? NSW politics in crisis. Elekshun nao?

Maybe not.

Fred Nile sits in the Upper House along with fellow Christian Democrat Paul Green. Much like in the Federal Senate, the status of the Upper House has no direct relation to the stability of the government itself. O'Farrell does not have an outright majority in the Upper House with or without the CDP, and he doesn't need one.

He has no (public) written agreement with the two conservative minor parties (the CDP and the Shooters and Fishers). That's not just because he doesn't need one - he promised he wouldn't before the election. As Labor put it in their glossy brochure that I wrote about previously:

Moreover, the Coalition hardly has the CDP votes in the bag. One would expect the CDP to support most O'Farrell bills (both being from the same wing of politics), but one would also expect them to extract their pound of flesh from time to time.

Such is the major party/minor party relationship. Twas ever thus.

Why is it, exactly, that Nile is in such a frenzy? It's this:

See the story here

As I've explained before, it makes no (direct) difference what anyone in the NSW government says or thinks about the gay marriage debate. O'Farrell's position is a purely symbolic one - something he has said for the headline.

That's fine. If journalists are willing to publish a few positive pieces about O'Farrell being in favour of gay marriage, then good luck to him.

Nile's little tantrum is not quite as obvious. For all his flaws, Nile is not an idiot. He knows that O'Farrell's words make no difference to anything. Homosexual people will not be able to marry their partners until Federal Labor supports it outright or until the Federal Coalition makes it (at least) a conscience vote - and neither of those things will happen until it is electorally expedient (if even then).

So why is Nile throwing his toys? Simple.

Can you imagine the calls Nile must have been getting over the last few days? His star is hitched to the Coalition wagon - and I think it is safe to assume that his supporters are absolutely ropeable at O'Farrell. And they are surely letting Nile know about it.

So he has to kick up a bit of a stink. Once the fuss dies down, Nile will continue to support most of the Coalition's legislative agenda, and will continue to demand concessions as and when it suits him.

Two flagrantly symbolic and utterly irrelevant acts. Can you tell the two Houses aren't sitting at the moment?

A State of Play

In light of the weeping and gnashing of teeth we've seen in the last 36 hours, I thought it would be interesting to glance at the NSW figures in this week's Nielsen poll.

This is the relevant part of the tables (as ever, leaked by @ghostwhovotes):

The Full Table can be seen here

This is to be compared with the results from December last year:

Full Table here

Now, there are countless problems with assuming anything as a result of a swing between one poll and another. The weaknesses in the entire polling model are well documented and a discussion for another time.

Suffice to say that the sample size for this entire poll was 1400. Focussing on NSW, and assuming that they selected respondents in proportion to the relative population of that state, this means that the NSW numbers are drawn from a sample of approximately 400 people. The SA/NT numbers are probably half that.

What I did want to think about briefly, however, are the NSW numbers, to the extent that we can be pretty sure they are just generally awful. Is there anything that NSW Labor can do to help? Moreover, would they be interested in doing so?

It has been my observation over the years that state leaders often appear ill-at-ease when purporting to support their Federal counter-parts. Either the State party is strong and therefore disinclined to support a weaker Federal campaign, or the Federal party is strong and disinclined to accept a weak state party's endorsement.

This translates to a lot of awkward photo-shoots as "worlds collide", where no one is really sure how to act and journalists unclear on how to frame the event.

My point, of course, it that Federal Labor probably doesn't really want John Robertson's help. He has no particular popularity (or even, let's be honest, profile) to draw on. His alternative government is monumentally unpopular. His presence, especially in light of the constant reminder's in the media of Labor's corruption, would almost surely do more harm than good.

As for Barry O'Farrell, what on earth does he have to gain? More importantly, he runs a major risk in being photographed with (on a personal level) the incredibly unpopular Tony Abbott. I think we can expect him to stick to voicing his support on twitter, and not a great deal more.

It's plain wrong to say that the election will be won or lost in western Sydney, except to the extent that any seats lost there will of course need to be made up somewhere else. Of course, that applies to every single seat that Labor holds, so I'm not sure it shows any great insight.

It's a pretty formidable challenge for Labor. I just hope that Gillard is not expecting any help from John Robertson, because I'm not sure he will be able to provide it.

Stabbed in the BackBench

This is a pretty remarkable story from Tyron Butson in the Inner West Courier:

Full story here

As if those opening 3 paragraphs weren't enough, we had direct quotes from 2 named MLAs:

It's just extraordinary.

How did these MLA's ever think this was a good idea? It is a clear threat to the Premier, conducted through the media, that he had better start promoting people or else they're going to quit.

That's without even considering whether promoting these backbenchers would be appropriate. Many of the present cabinet members knocked around in opposition for a long time, and whether or not they are "right" for the job I think they are entitled to feel like they're finally "getting their go".

But that's not even the point. If you are of the view that you deserve a promotion, you have a quiet word to the people who decide these things. If that doesn't work, you go about proving that you deserve it.

If that doesn't work, you keep your head down and back someone else when they challenge for the leadership. Or you wait around for whoever it is that doesn't like you to moves on.

That can take years. But to launch an assault through your local newspaper strikes me as more than just arrogant - it's plain dumb.

Did these guys think that O'Farrell would now be intimidated into giving them a gig? Or that he would overlook their obvious inability to be a team player?

As it happens, when Heath Aston (writing for the SMH) followed up the story the next day, there had been two thoroughly unsurprising developments:

Full story here

No doubt he got his torn a new one by someone on behalf of the Premier (or perhaps even by the Premier himself) and was forced to release a grovelling statement taking it all back. Looking at the wording, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the Premier's officer was even kind enough to draft it for him.

This was always going to be a problem for O'Farrell. He has a lot of people who spent a long, long time in opposition paying their dues. He has a lot of young MLA's who are impatient for their time in the sun. He has far too many backbenchers, meaning that he doesn't have enough titles, committees and positions of importance to keep all the egos satisfied.

But I think he may have hoped that those backbenchers would have a little more sense than to go about things in this fashion.

Will there be more grumbling like this? For sure. But will there be any MLA's dumb enough to put their name to it again? I doubt it.

A Burney Misogeny?

Is Barry O'Farrell a misogynist?

I don't know. But I certainly was surprised to see this article flick through my timeline this morning:

Full story in the Tele

The comments complained of are further down the page:

Further down:

There were also complaints that O'Farrell had made derogatory comments about Kristina Keneally:

Whilst I don't for a second doubt that O'Farrell fully intended the alleged subtext, I don't have any intention of discussing whether they are in fact misogynistic.

No doubt others will have their say on that issue. But I can live without being flamed for "not doing feminism right". So I'll leave that for other blogs.

What I am interested in is whether this mud is going to stick.

There can be no doubt that the attacks that have been made on Tony Abbott for comments he has made about women have been incredibly effective.

Before the last federal election, GetUp launched this ad:

Whether it actually changed any votes is anyone's guess. It certainly wasn't the first attempt to label Abbott as a misogynist.

It wasn't really until Julia Gillard's speech in parliament late last year that the idea really gained traction in the popular media:

Whether you think her attack is fair or not, you cannot deny that it has fundamentally changed the public's perception of Abbott. It was a decisive speech that has (probably permanently) labelled Abbott as, at the very least, anti-women.

No doubt this is the kind of result that Burney would have been hoping for with the Telegraph article. No one else has picked the story up (as of late this afternoon, and as best I can tell) - but Burney may well have been hoping that bored NSW Political reporters might be keen to run with the issue.

If that is what she is hoping for, I think she is going to be disappointed.

There are many reasons that Gillard's speech resonated with the Australian public.

In part, it was a powerful woman sticking it to a powerful man in a way that we are unaccustomed to seeing, even today.

Moreover, it didn't overreach. She didn't need to look for offence, or trawl for comments and somehow twist them to suit her partisan goals.  Abbott's statements spoke for themselves.

Most of all, in my opinion, the reason her speech resonated was because it fitted generally with the latent opinion about Abbott.

Recently I read a comment the basically said that a political ad is most powerful when it accords with what the public already suspects about someone.

The public suspected that Romney was obscenely wealthy and didn't care about the disadvantaged. This is why the now-famous 47% video resonated so strongly:

Julia Gillard's knifing of Kevin Rudd and her immediate ascension to the Prime Ministership had an air of illegitimacy about it. So, when she promised not to introduced a Carbon Tax and then reneged on that promise, the cry of "Liar!" was always going to be damaging:

So, again: are these attacks on Barry O'Farrell and the insinuations that he is a misogynist going to stick?

I don't think so.

O'Farrell just doesn't have "the runs on the board' to make the allegation something that will fundamentally alter the community's perception of him in the same way.

That's certainly not to say that the comments in question were appropriate, or defensible. To give them some context, I've extracted them below.

First of all, the "hooker" comment:

Further on:

As for the "witch" comment:

The Kim Kardashian comments are a little more interesting. I recall them causing a fuss around the time that O'Farrell got into the habit of referring to Keneally in that way.

The first came on 8 November 2011, when Keneally was still sitting as the Member for Heffron:

Then, on the very next day:

And then, finally, on 14 February 2012, this happened:

All very unseemly.

When push comes to shove, I think this issue is going to disappear pretty quickly. Whilst Linda Burney is the acting Opposition Leader, Robertson will be back on deck soon, and the obvious opportunity afforded by her acting in the role will slip away.

What she will be hoping is that O'Farrell will keep making these kinds of comments, and that more articles on this topic get written. Unfortunately for her, I suspect that O'Farrell is a little too smart for that.

But you never know.

UPDATE: In fairness, thought I should include this exchange as O'Farrell has a response of sorts to what I have written above:

At the time of making this update, there had not been a reply to that last tweet.

Polls Apart

The new Newspoll was released today. Suffice to say that it will bring no joy to John Robertson or the ALP as a whole.

First, the party numbers:

Full table here

And the Premier numbers:

Full table here

True it is that there has been a gradual drift back to the ALP since the election. Their present 2PP numbers are some 5% better than at the election.

The problem is that a few simple sums show that, at this rate of improvement, the ALP will not win the next election. Believe it or not, we are almost half-way through the 4 year fixed term that O'Farrell won in March of 2011. Labor has made up 5% of the 14% shellacking they got almost 2 years ago.

There are good reasons why politicians who make decisions based upon polls deserve contempt. That said, when the polls are consistent over a long period of time, more concrete conclusions can be drawn about the attitude of the electorate.

That said, the numerical issue over how fast Labor catches up is the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

There should always be a rebound of sorts after a big win for a challenger in an election. Many people will often vote for the opposition because "it's time for a change" or "because we need to send a message". In and of themselves, those are pretty stupid justifications for a vote, but it is a common reason after a government has spent a long time in power.

People who naturally see themselves as supporting the incumbant will, for reasons that remain opaque to me, choose to vote for someone else. Those people should naturally flow back to the new opposition once they have been defeated.

Even more common is the disillusioned supporter - those people who voted for the challenger (perhaps against their better judgment) and then are immediately shocked/surprised/horrified by the changes introduced by the new government.

When you consider that a new government will often "get the bad stuff out of the way early" there should be a pretty large group of dissillusioned voters.

This is particularly so after a particularly heavy victory - there must be hundred of thousands (if not millions) of people who voted Liberal/National for the first time in their entire lives in 2011.

Those people must, for the most part, have been appalled by O'Farrell's actions since the election. They would have plenty company.

This makes the failure of the Labor opposotion to make inroads since the election surprising - and no doubt concerning for the Labor faithful.

Whilst O'Farrell has, for reasons I have discussed previously, an excellent chance of serving at least 8 years, Labor will not be willing to roll over and concede this. Their failure to make up significant ground renders this almost inevitable.

Barry United

I was at the ground last time Manchester United played in Australia.

My family (or at least, my father, brother and I) were and still are United fans, so understandably we were pretty excited about the prospect of seeing in real life a team we had been watching on TV for years.

It was a great night. United got up over the Socceroos 1-0, we got to see some of our favourite players in the flesh, and everyone went home happy. I'll spare you all the photo of me in a ridiculous hat.

I don't know what the tickets cost (thanks Dad!) but I feel pretty safe in assuming that it turned a profit for a few investors.

Naturally, transporting a Premier League team out to Ausralia to play in one game costs a packet. I'm guessing 20 players, over a dozen staff, plus enormous amount of paraphenalia - and you know those players aren't flying economy.

Add to that the logistics of staging the event and you have an enormous cost. It's hardly unusual for governments to kick in for events like this.

Football teams like to tour other countries to provide a bump to their foreign fan base (and, inevitably, their foreign merchandise sales) - but it's hard to believe that the numbers add up for those teams.

And, when O'Farrell announced today that United would be playing a game against the "A-League All Stars" several people quite rightly asked how much we were kicking in.

The answer?

Full story in the SMH

The ever-present problem with these kinds of figures is that they are almost impossible to calculate. Who can possibly know with any certainty how much the local economy will benefit from people who travel here to watch the game? How about the benefit to tourism as United fans all over the world read about where their beloved team played on the weekend?

And the effect on Sydney's "brand"?

When it comes down to it, these numbers are only one small step away from "wholly imaginary" - they are almost impossible to assess and only fool would rely on them.

So why on earth is O'Farrell investing our money on that basis?

Well, a few reasons.

First of all, he gets to present a good-news story.  You know, making things happen, getting things done, Sydney is a world city etc.

Moreover, he gets to do it looking just a little lame in the United scarf and red tie, which I'm sure picture editors will make heavy use of tomorrow.

Full video on the ABC website

But, most of all, I think it taps into the Sydney parocialism that we are so famous for.

People who care about football (and even those who don't) will view this announcement with a smug satisfaction that we got the game and Melbourne didn't. What was it O'Farrell said again?

It doesn't matter if you have any intention of attending, or even if you will be inconvenienced by the fixture.

Sydneysiders like putting one up Melbourne, and they're going to like a politician who is responsible for that.

And if that ends up costing the government some money - I reckon most of Sydney (if not NSW) would be OK with that.

A Parroted Condemnation

I'm going to do my best to not add unnecessarily to the explosion of writing on Alan Jones in the last few days.

As for the comments themselves, @bernietb said it in a way few of us could:

Obviously, he (Jones, not Bernie) is just an awful person.

What I was more interested in discussing was the unrelenting demand for our politicians to condemn what he said.

I can understand journalists pursuing politicians demanding a condemnation. It gives them the chance to stretch a few more stories about the issue.

First there is the reporting of the comments, then we have the attempts to contact the maker, then the people who condemn the comments, then those that have still "refused" to condemn the comments, then the apology - and by then someone has said something new and we can all move on and be outraged about something else.

It's a bit pathetic - but if I was journalist working on unrealistic deadlines and impossible demands for content then perhaps I'd do the same thing.

Of course the people who perceive that they profit from the outrage will happily buy into the stupidity, so over the weekend we were treated to this:

And, of course, inevitably, this:

Of course, the timing of this whole thing was interesting, given that earlier last week Jones had torn into Barry O'Farrell on his show:

Have a listen here

The punters loved it

Of course, in due course O'Farrell eventually did have something to say. Well, sort of:

This was an odd little comment, for a number of reasons.

First of all, everyone assumed that O'Farrell was talking about Jones. He certainly did and said nothing to suggest otherwise - so why not say his name?

Moreover, as condemnations go, it was a pretty weak one. It's a vague comment that suggests a certain disapproval - but that's all.

Some people suggested that the vagueness was intentional:

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. What was dumb was the constant demand on O'Farrell to condemn Jones' statement.

It is entirely irrelevant to O'Farrell's job what Alan Jones says. If people want to petition O'Farrell to ban his ministers from appearing on the show, or to stop the NSW Government advertising on his show (assuming they do) then so be it.

But to relentlessly demand that he condemn something that someone said is just petty, and even childish.

And the fact that the comment was made at a Sydney University Liberal Club dinner does not change that. By all means criticise the Liberal Party and suggest that the leaders of the club should be spoken to/stood down/sent to bed without dinner - but to demand that O'Farrell condemn the comments seems like a shameless attempt to profit politically from what Jones said.

Really, it is little different from demanding that Jones apologise. Does anyone really think he meant a word of the "apology" he delivered yesterday?

 

Of course he didn't. 

O'Farrell may have meant what he tweeted yesterday, or he may not. We'll never know, because he relented to enormous pressure from some groups to say the right thing.

He certainly got the right coverage for it:

Full story on SMH

And no doubt before the week is out the press (and twitter) will have moved on to rage about something else.

Indeed.

A Driving Ambition?

The criticism of O'Farrell's draft 20-year Master Plan has been almost universal.

It's surprising, and a little unfair, but not unexpected.

The people at the Terrorgraph have continued their campaign to paint O'Farrell as being a dithering planner rather than the bold doer they would rather write about.

Full editorial here

That criticism is not without basis. O'Farrell has showed himself to be quick to plan and slow to do.

Other papers have focused on the lack of confirmed funding for plans. Whilst the projects highlighted in the plan are categorised as being short, medium or long-term, there is no specific information as to how the projects will be paid for.

Precisely how the state of the budget in 2020 is meant to be predicted accurately enough to say that a project will be paid for in a certain way is beyond me.

That said, the plan is still only a draft - we won't get the final version until later this year. Plus, it's a PLAN - not a budget.

O'Farrell does deserve credit for planning in this way. An oft-repeated and richly deserved criticism of Labor's history of transport planning is that it was all "back-of-the-envelope" stuff - plans announced and then dropped before you knew it.

If ever an area of public policy required forward planning, it is transport. It is appropriate and commendable that these steps are being taken.

The problem for O'Farrell is that the public is restless for more action.

Full story on the Herald Sun site

That's not all O'Farrell's fault - he is being forced to carry the can for the failings of his predecessors. People are all out of patience.

He's snookered in because he came to power talking big about infrastructure and transport - but his budget just doesn't have the space.

These projects are going to be hugely, massively expensive - and he is committed to starting the North-West Rail link soon. This all in the face of a shrinking tax base and the exploding cost of the public service.

When the retrospectives are being written, no one is going to remember whether announced funding at this time, or the number of plans released.

What will be remembered is whether O'Farrell, like the Labor Premiers before him, announced then shelved plans, never once showing the citizen an ounce of respect.

Did he deliver on his promises? That's the question that matters.

PS Memo to John Robertson: No, you can't criticise yet. Give it a decade.

The Silent Menace

Here's a hypothetical situation for you to consider.

You're out with some friends on a Saturday night. You've had a few drinks - you're not drunk, but you're enjoying your night. It's a dark pub in the city - there is music, flashing lights, people everywhere.

You look over your shoulder and see your friend being punched by someone you don't recognise. You don't know how it started, and your friend may well deserve that punch, but you immediately run over to try and help your friend.

As you arrive, suddenly there are people everywhere. You get a knock to the head - you're not sure who or it was. Suddenly you're just trying to defend yourself.

After 10 seconds of chaos, someone grabs you round the throat, and before you know it you're on the ground, handcuffed. You're taken to a police station, put in a 1m by 2m cell with a clear plexiglass wall and given an icepack for that lump on your forehead.

You wait there for about 2 hours and start to sober up. You are offered the chance to call a lawyer, but it is 1am on a saturday night, and of course you don't have any lawyer's mobile phone number. The few law firms that you find in the Yellow Pages don't pick up, and in any event, how would you pay for their services?

Then, a police officer approaches you, takes you in a room. As he's setting up, you ask what is going on, and he says "We're investigating what happened in that pub. This is your chance to tell your side of the story."

You respond "Do I have to?" and he replies "No." You say "Am I going to be charged" and he says "Maybe."

He turns the video camera on and is joined by another officer. The say "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"

You say yes, and police start asking questions.

You know you did nothing wrong, and you've got nothing to hide. Do you answer the questions?

If you said yes, you almost certainly just made a massive mistake. Don't feel bad - the vast majority of people (innocent or guilty) who are charged with an offence give an interview. People who are innocent are even more likely to start talking.

I've been working in criminal defence work for four and a half years, and I am yet to see even one interview given by a client that helps them. Not once. I have NEVER even heard of a situation where police decided not to charge someone because of what they said in their interview.

The problem is this - by the time they speak to you at 1am that night, police have taken statements from security, the barman, the alleged victims, and anyone else who they think might help. They have viewed the CCTV footage, if it exists. They have sat down and worked out what they think happened.

They have all the information. You have none. They know what they plan to charge you with, and what the elements of the offence are. You do not.

If you say anything, ANYTHING that differs from what the CCTV footage shows, the police will do everything in their power to use it to your disadvantage. If you forget something, or in your muddled, disorientated state of mind during the interview and then bring it up when your matter is heard, you will be hammered for it.

If you get home and find a huge bruise on your back and suddenly remember that punch you got just before you got hit in the head, or if you remember something that you forgot to mention - too bad so sad, you missed your chance. Anything you add now looks like something you've invented specially.

Interviews are almost universally a very bad thing for accused persons.

This is what makes the changes announced today all the more shocking:

NSW will be the very first jurisdiction in the country to take these steps.

Why is this change such a bad thing? A lot of reasons.

Firstly, the person being interviewed will almost never have had the benefit of legal advice. There will usually not be a lawyer there to protect and advise them, even if they could afford to pay for one. They won't know what they are to be charged with, they won't know the elements of the offence, and they won't know if they are guilty or innocent.

Police, by contrast, will know what they are trying to prove, and will ask difficult, confusing questions to trap you into admitting something, or at least into contradicting what they know they can prove.

These changes will be an even more powerful emotional tool for police to use to convince a person to give an interview. Of course they cannot literally force someone to start answering questions - but once people are told that, in effect, that if you don't tell us what happened it can be bad for you, it is difficult to resist the natural willingness to answer questions.

Moreover, at present I can as a solicitor give general advice that an interview is almost universally a bad thing. I tend to tell anyone who talks to me about my job for more than a few minutes.

If this change is made, that advice will change to "it depends". It will be pretty much impossible to advise a person whether giving an interview is a good idea without spending a decent amount of time talking to them about what has happened - and that assumes that you even know what you are going to be charged with. At 2am in the morning, there is no way that going to happen.

The second issue is the presumption of innocence. The basic principle is that the Crown needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

That is a heavy burden - but it is the right burden. Anyone can make an allegation against someone, but we don't want to have to come to court and prove that we didn't do something. Not only is proving a negative all but impossible, but the prosecution have far, far greater resources than all but the wealthiest of defendants.

Police have incredible investigative powers that are not even worth comparing to an individual's. 

The third issue is that there has been no report, no investigation, and no consultation.

Well, that's not quite true. In 2000 the Law Reform Commission closely examined the right to silence and produced this quite excellent report. Their conclusion?

Section 89 of the Evidence Act presently reads:

This mooted change comes completely out of the blue. To my knowledge no one has been actively campaigning for it, no one has suggested that it is a major problem to be fixed, and no other jurisdiction in Australia has tried because it because it is a pretty bloody stupid idea.

The only people quoted in O'Farrell's press release are O'Farrell, AG Greg Smith, the Police Minister Mike Gallagher (3 Liberal politicians) and Police Commissioner Scipione (police being famous for never having met a new power they didn't like).

It is also pretty interesting to look at the reasons that have been proffered by the Coalition as the story broke today.

If by exploited O'Farrell means "being used to the accused's advantage" then I suppose a lot of other rights are in danger.  On that definition, accused person's constantly "exploit" their right to a trial, and their right to legal representation, not to mention their right to a presumption of innocence. 

Unless O'Farrell can point to some evidence of this right being somehow illegitimately exploited then this is a non-sensical criticism.

And to say it an "importan legal right" and then comprehensively rip it to shreds - I don't even know what to say about that.

Well, yes. Of course accused persons restrict information given to police! The police are trying to prove them guilty of an offence that they deny committing! Is O'Farrell expecting these people to actively assist police in trying to prove them guilty?

If police uniformly and reliably investigated matters with the intention of finding the truth (not just "getting their man" as is so often the case), and if the police never made a mistake, never jumped to a conclusion and never relied on their "gut" rather than the evidence, then perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem. But we all know that is a fantasy.

Ah, that old chestnut! Common sense! Also known as "We have no evidence that this is a good idea, but it sounds good, so we're going to do it!"

That's why you hear so much talk about "common sense" from some people. It's a wonderful way to avoid annoying things like "evidence", "specialised knowledge" and "research".

Brad Burden is the head media guy for O'Farrell, and his tweets today got me madder than any others.

Bring into line with the UK? What possible reason is there that we need to have the same laws on this topic as the UK does?

Bringing laws into line with other states can sometimes makes sense. At the moment the states are working on bringing together the laws surrounding heavy vehicles. This makes a lot of sense - the heavy vehicle regulation in NSW is eye-wateringly complicated, and having to work with the laws in 6 other states and territories must be an absolute nightmare.

To suggest that there is a good reason to bring laws into line with the UK is ridiculous in the extreme.

It is also worth noting that in the UK there is a scheme whereby any accused person can at any time have access to legal advice 24/7. There are duty lawyers who are always available to attend police stations and give advice

In NSW, you have the right to access legal advice, but it is impossible to find unless you have the mobile number of a criminal lawyer in your pocket. Legal Aid do great work in NSW but their funding has no prospect of even coming close to this level of service - they are hard-up providing enough lawyers just to make the court appearances for their clients during waking hours.

This was the tweet that really made me crazy. This change has nothing to do with victims of crime. It is about making it easier to convict someone of an offence. To link it to "victims of crime" is just plain deceptive.

That segues pretty well to the biggest complaint I have about these changes.

Everyone is going to be talking about the way that these changes will affect people who are guilty of crimes and trying to hide it. Case in point:

I have no problem with something that makes it easier to lock up people who are guilty of offences. That's good, and proper, and should be encouraged.

What upsets me about these changes is the effect that it will have on people who are not guilty of anything.

If you are innocent of any crime, the absolute worst thing that can happen to you is a police interview, especially before you get legal advice. Police will know the evidence they want to get from you. They will spin your answers, they will provide you with information as and when it suits their questions, they will change tack and try and catch you in a lie, and they will give you every opportunity to say something they can prove is untrue.

There is no magistrate to rule questions out, and there is most likely no lawyer there to help explain things to you. And your answers will be mercilessly used to convince a jury that you are in fact guilty.

And more innocent people will go to gaol as a result. Fact.

Nice one Barry.