Mr STIRLING - 1998-10-07
When the Attorney-General introduced his legislation putting all new magistrates in the Northern Territory on 10 year contracts, I asked: ‘Who else does this?’. The Attorney-General responded, quite promptly: ‘New South Wales’. The facts are quite different. Of the 128 magistrates in New South Wales, 125 are permanently appointed and a mere 3 have been appointed, not to limited tenure, but appointed as acting magistrates, to target backlogs in the Local Courts. Can the Attorney-General tell us here today why he sought to mislead this parliament and Territorians in the last sittings?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I certainly didn’t mislead anybody. The reality is that you can make appointments on that basis in New South Wales, and that was the advice that I had.
Just so Territorians understand what the member for Nhulunbuy is talking about, the Northern Territory government is moving to provide for magistrates to have 10 year terms. Members opposite take exception to that. They just want an open-ended appointment, and the government takes a different view of it. I suspect that the Northern Territory taxpayer and public would be of like mind with the government on this issue. But if the Labor Party want to go out there and run a different line, please do it! Tell as many people as you can. I will help you get out there and explain your position.
There has to be a greater sense of accountability in the way our courts operate. That is the simple fact of it. Members opposite, the Labor Party, who are soft on crime, soft on law and order issues, are now about to stand out there and argue that there should not be the accountability that we propose to introduce into that legislation. That is the Labor Party. They are on the record. They oppose mandatory sentencing – at least this week they do. They change their policies so often to suit their mood shifts, you wouldn’t know.
This is about accountability. We are all accountable. We face the electorate every 4 years. Why shouldn’t others be accountable?
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister said that the courts are not accountable. Perhaps he would like to name the magistrates who he feels are not accountable, who need to be on …
Mr Stone: What is your point of order?
Mr BAILEY: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is in relation to unparliamentary behaviour. It is unparliamentary to refer to …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BAILEY: Madam Speaker, unparliamentary behaviour includes disrepute of the judiciary and other parliaments as well as parliament in here. For the Chief Minister to imply …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri …
Mr BAILEY: … that there is inappropriate behaviour by judges, that is something he has to do by substantive motion, or withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I certainly didn’t mislead anybody. The reality is that you can make appointments on that basis in New South Wales, and that was the advice that I had.
Just so Territorians understand what the member for Nhulunbuy is talking about, the Northern Territory government is moving to provide for magistrates to have 10 year terms. Members opposite take exception to that. They just want an open-ended appointment, and the government takes a different view of it. I suspect that the Northern Territory taxpayer and public would be of like mind with the government on this issue. But if the Labor Party want to go out there and run a different line, please do it! Tell as many people as you can. I will help you get out there and explain your position.
There has to be a greater sense of accountability in the way our courts operate. That is the simple fact of it. Members opposite, the Labor Party, who are soft on crime, soft on law and order issues, are now about to stand out there and argue that there should not be the accountability that we propose to introduce into that legislation. That is the Labor Party. They are on the record. They oppose mandatory sentencing – at least this week they do. They change their policies so often to suit their mood shifts, you wouldn’t know.
This is about accountability. We are all accountable. We face the electorate every 4 years. Why shouldn’t others be accountable?
Ms MARTIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister said that the courts are not accountable. Perhaps he would like to name the magistrates who he feels are not accountable, who need to be on …
Mr Stone: What is your point of order?
Mr BAILEY: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is in relation to unparliamentary behaviour. It is unparliamentary to refer to …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr BAILEY: Madam Speaker, unparliamentary behaviour includes disrepute of the judiciary and other parliaments as well as parliament in here. For the Chief Minister to imply …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri …
Mr BAILEY: … that there is inappropriate behaviour by judges, that is something he has to do by substantive motion, or withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016