Mal Brough says we should remove the per­pet­rat­ors of crime from the scene rather than the victim. What a novel idea. Funny how male viol­ence against women and chil­dren is the only one where we reg­u­larly require the victim to relo­cate ‘for her safety’ whereas in every other crime, we take away and either coun­sel or punish the offender.

(I do get that in serial offences, some women need to move so the offender does­n’t know where they are. But the offender should be dealt with too; the solu­tion should not simply be seen as the removal of his target.)

How weird to find myself agree­ing with a Lib­eral – now we have two of them. Well done, that man. Between him and Petro Gior­giou, I might begin to think they’re not mon­sters. Well, except I want coun­selling pro­grams and com­munity solu­tions and Brough wants law-and-order, but it’s a start.

How­ever, this, from the same art­icle, is outrageous:

Local coun­cil spokes­man Dale Sean­i­ger said that because of riot­ing the local Centrelink office had been open for only 112 days in the past two weeks and about 400 people did not have access to their bene­fits. “So people are hungry,” he said.

I’m sorry? You close the office and because people can’t hand their forms in, you don’t pay them? Do you think maybe paying them in good faith might be an idea? Frig­ging bureaucracy!