Ms MARTIN - 2000-08-15
He hasdone a backflip. Last week in this House, the Labor opposition asked a number of questions about drug-related crime. In response, he described the Territory’s drug-related crime problem as ‘minuscule’ and proceeded to vilify me. By Sunday, he had seen the light, acknowledging there is a problem and proposing changing the onus of proof for those caught with trafficable quantities of drugs from the prosecution to the defendant. Labor wholeheartedly supports this change. Can the Chief Minister explain to Territorians what has brought on this latest backflip?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition might wish to trumpet some success in this area, but I am sorry to disillusion her. The work that was being generated by me was in response to the CLP Central Council, a body of public opinion that I do take note of with regard to …
Ms Martin: So you told them the problem was miniscule, did you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister is on his feet, answering a question.
Mr BURKE: I remind honourable members again that there are listeners, Territorians who are interested in this broadcast. It would be good if the questions could be asked in a considered way and the responses listened to in a considered way.
The Leader of the Opposition tries to trumpet that she has had some influence on this issue. Frankly, if she was honest with herself she would have suggested some sort of mechanism to deal with the Misuse of Drugs Act if she was concerned about that particular area. The reality is that she was trying to promote a lie with regard to resourcing of the police force. It has nothing to do with …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, there is a point of order. The Chief Minister cannot imply that …
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. She was creating the misconception that somehow we have a drug problem on our streets because of police resourcing, something that is totally untrue. She had no concern for any legislative changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
My comments following the CLP motion on the weekend are in response to the fact that in terms of strengthening penalties for drug offences, is mandatory sentencing the appropriate mechanism to use at this stage? My answer to that is ‘no’. There are mechanisms that can be used within the Misuse of Drugs Act which include reversing the onus of proof at the stage of sentencing when a plea by the offender is presented to the court to suggest that somehow they are a victim in the process, they were only a courier. Notwithstanding that they might have commercial, trafficable amounts, that plea is put to the court. At the moment the prosecution has to prove that that plea is not true.
A proposal that is being looked at in the Attorney-General’s Department has come from the judiciary itself. It suggests that a reversal of the onus of proof at that stage would be an appropriate legislative change, so that it would be up to the offender and his counsel in presenting that plea to prove that it the court, rather than the reverse being the case, where the onus presently rests on the prosecution.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition might wish to trumpet some success in this area, but I am sorry to disillusion her. The work that was being generated by me was in response to the CLP Central Council, a body of public opinion that I do take note of with regard to …
Ms Martin: So you told them the problem was miniscule, did you?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister is on his feet, answering a question.
Mr BURKE: I remind honourable members again that there are listeners, Territorians who are interested in this broadcast. It would be good if the questions could be asked in a considered way and the responses listened to in a considered way.
The Leader of the Opposition tries to trumpet that she has had some influence on this issue. Frankly, if she was honest with herself she would have suggested some sort of mechanism to deal with the Misuse of Drugs Act if she was concerned about that particular area. The reality is that she was trying to promote a lie with regard to resourcing of the police force. It has nothing to do with …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Speaker!
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, there is a point of order. The Chief Minister cannot imply that …
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. She was creating the misconception that somehow we have a drug problem on our streets because of police resourcing, something that is totally untrue. She had no concern for any legislative changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act.
My comments following the CLP motion on the weekend are in response to the fact that in terms of strengthening penalties for drug offences, is mandatory sentencing the appropriate mechanism to use at this stage? My answer to that is ‘no’. There are mechanisms that can be used within the Misuse of Drugs Act which include reversing the onus of proof at the stage of sentencing when a plea by the offender is presented to the court to suggest that somehow they are a victim in the process, they were only a courier. Notwithstanding that they might have commercial, trafficable amounts, that plea is put to the court. At the moment the prosecution has to prove that that plea is not true.
A proposal that is being looked at in the Attorney-General’s Department has come from the judiciary itself. It suggests that a reversal of the onus of proof at that stage would be an appropriate legislative change, so that it would be up to the offender and his counsel in presenting that plea to prove that it the court, rather than the reverse being the case, where the onus presently rests on the prosecution.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016