Mr BALCH - 2000-06-14
All allegations made by the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (NAALAS) against Chief Magistrate Hugh Bradley and his appointment by the Northern Territory government were thrown out by the Supreme Court yesterday.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALCH: ... of that decision?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is where leadership comes to the fore.
Mr Stirling: Have you apologised to the Chief Magistrate?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister will resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much interjection by the opposition. You are complaining about the time it is taking to answer questions. I will admit they are taking too long, but part of it is due entirely to the amount of interjection from the opposition benches. Let us hear the answer in reasonable silence.
Mr BURKE: With the episode of Hugh Bradley what we are seeing is a disgrace in some sections of the legal profession, aided and abetted by the Labor Party in the Northern Territory and the Labor Party ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: … to undermine ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Nhulunbuy. Once more and you are out for an hour.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition has the hide to open her mouth in this Chamber. It has been shut tight over about the last eight weeks with regard to this whole episode. That is real leadership for you! That is real support when you are seeing a man’s 30-year reputation being sent down the bung hole. That is how you do it. You are either the Leader of the Northern Territory Labor Party or you are irrelevant. This is what the Labor Party in the Northern Territory had to say about the Chief Magistrate on 26 April this year.
Ms Martin: Have you written to him?
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Have you written to him? I have spent about $100 000 on …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ‘Have you written to him?’ You have been down in the bunkers doing nothing, Sending your water boy up to do your work for you. This is what the Labor Party in the Northern Territory had to say about the Chief Magistrate:
NAALAS have a responsibility to defend every client before them to the very best of their ability. If they believe that there is a perception of bias in the Chief Magistrate because of the special deal that was struck, they run that case. In the case of Justice Olney, he seemed to think that there may well be. In the Supreme Court, now that is a situation that has occurred and it is likely to occur again in the future. The Chief Magistrate has been placed in an untenable position. I don’t think I can see a way through it other than to get a new Chief Magistrate.
Now, does the Leader of the Opposition support that proposition or not? ‘I don’t see any way through it other than to get a new Chief Magistrate’. Do you support the proposition or don’t you? Do you support the proposition by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory on 26 April this year that we should have got a new Chief Magistrate?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! On both sides, please, order! Let us hear it reasonably quietly.
Mr BURKE: And then the Labor Party says on 27 April:
We have a situation where he has been complicit in an arrangement that now sees the Chief Magistrate in an absolutely untenable position. I really think the only way that they can clear the situation up is to replace the Chief Magistrate.
Do you support that statement on 27 April or don’t you, Leader of the Opposition? She either does or she doesn’t. She is either a leader or she is irrelevant. There are only two sides to the coin. God help us if you were in war situation! ‘It’s untenable. Let’s go, it’s untenable’, and you would leave half your troops behind.
What you do is you get in and you fight, and that is what happened with regard to the Chief Magistrate. You get in and you fight for the case that is right - was right from the outset and has proved to be right in the courts.
Mr Stirling: So you would do it again.
Mr BURKE: The member for Nhulunbuy says: ‘So you would do it again’. I will tell you what the executive of government can do. If you read the transcript of the court...
Ms Martin You were a joke on radio this morning. You don’t even understand the decision. You are a fool of a man.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The mouse of a leader is squeaking. I was trying to hear what she said.
Ms Martin: I said you are a fool.
Mr BURKE: A fool! Now she says I am a fool. Apart from abuse, she never says anything of substance. How about some effort to support the Chief Magistrate over the last seven weeks? That in reality is what we are talking about here.
What came out of the ruling yesterday is that it is the prerogative, not affecting the separation of powers, for the executive of government to appoint judges and magistrates on terms that they see fit. It is absolutely clear in the judgment that it does not affect the separation of powers. It is the responsibility and right of the parliament to provide resources for decisions of the executive. And, to complete the equilateral triangle, it is the absolute obligation and freedom of the judiciary to sit on cases without interference from parliament or from the executive. That is the fact of the matter.
The suggestion that people have tried to raise consistently in this whole episode - we could track back through the whole lot but the reality is that justice...
Mr Stirling: But you wouldn’t remember it.
Mr BURKE: I remembered all right. Justice Olney made it very clear that the case was hopeless from the outset. The allegations that were made against the Chief Magistrate in terms of his conduct on the bench were scandalous and irrelevant. And all of that was supported by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory.
Ms Martin: It was created by you.
Mr BURKE: Right, the Leader of the Opposition is now on the record saying it was all created by me. The whole situation was created by me. Well, go back and read what Justice Olney said.
Mr Henderson: It was what Shane Stone did, what the president of your party did.
Mr BURKE: Only through ignorance would the Labor Party continue to suggest that the situation was created by me or by Shane Stone. The situation was ...
Mr Stirling: Was it Hugh Bradley’s fault?
Mr BURKE: Read the judgment. We know whose fault it was. It was created by Michael Jones, Gordon Renouf, Syd Stirling, Kim Beazley and your mates down south. The leader sat in the corner saying: ‘I will just put the bunker over me and see what happens for a few weeks before I decide which way I will go. I will let old Syd here run it for a while’.
The real situation is that there was no case. There was nothing illegal. There was nothing untoward. It was an invention of NAALAS lawyers that was supported by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory. To my mind, it is an absolute disgrace that the same sections of that profession, who stand so high and mighty …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Your partner is one of them. What does he think about the whole episode?
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You’ll be right, member for Wanguri. I am helping you, mate - no worries. You have to lead. You can’t sit down in the bunker and say nothing in this sort of episode. You can’t let your deputy speak on behalf of the Labor Party and pretend to be the leader. You either lead them or you follow. And while you’re at it, try not to mislead Territorians.
What we have seen in this whole episode is what I believe has been a disgrace to the legal profession. Labor supporters sit on their high horse and declare how mighty the legal system is, how mightily independent it is, the power and authority of the courts, and yet try to mount a deputation and try to destroy him in the media, all because they don’t like the situation that comes from the fact that we have mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. Another point was made very clearly in the court yesterday by inference, and that is there is no conflict at all with the issue of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory that affects the separation of powers one iota.
Mr SPEAKER: We have had two questions in very close to half an hour. I would appreciate it if answers were kept short and interjections were kept to an absolute minimum.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BALCH: ... of that decision?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, this is where leadership comes to the fore.
Mr Stirling: Have you apologised to the Chief Magistrate?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chief Minister will resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much interjection by the opposition. You are complaining about the time it is taking to answer questions. I will admit they are taking too long, but part of it is due entirely to the amount of interjection from the opposition benches. Let us hear the answer in reasonable silence.
Mr BURKE: With the episode of Hugh Bradley what we are seeing is a disgrace in some sections of the legal profession, aided and abetted by the Labor Party in the Northern Territory and the Labor Party ...
Members interjecting.
Mr BURKE: … to undermine ...
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Nhulunbuy. Once more and you are out for an hour.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I am surprised the Leader of the Opposition has the hide to open her mouth in this Chamber. It has been shut tight over about the last eight weeks with regard to this whole episode. That is real leadership for you! That is real support when you are seeing a man’s 30-year reputation being sent down the bung hole. That is how you do it. You are either the Leader of the Northern Territory Labor Party or you are irrelevant. This is what the Labor Party in the Northern Territory had to say about the Chief Magistrate on 26 April this year.
Ms Martin: Have you written to him?
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition says: ‘Have you written to him? I have spent about $100 000 on …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: ‘Have you written to him?’ You have been down in the bunkers doing nothing, Sending your water boy up to do your work for you. This is what the Labor Party in the Northern Territory had to say about the Chief Magistrate:
NAALAS have a responsibility to defend every client before them to the very best of their ability. If they believe that there is a perception of bias in the Chief Magistrate because of the special deal that was struck, they run that case. In the case of Justice Olney, he seemed to think that there may well be. In the Supreme Court, now that is a situation that has occurred and it is likely to occur again in the future. The Chief Magistrate has been placed in an untenable position. I don’t think I can see a way through it other than to get a new Chief Magistrate.
Now, does the Leader of the Opposition support that proposition or not? ‘I don’t see any way through it other than to get a new Chief Magistrate’. Do you support the proposition or don’t you? Do you support the proposition by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory on 26 April this year that we should have got a new Chief Magistrate?
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! On both sides, please, order! Let us hear it reasonably quietly.
Mr BURKE: And then the Labor Party says on 27 April:
We have a situation where he has been complicit in an arrangement that now sees the Chief Magistrate in an absolutely untenable position. I really think the only way that they can clear the situation up is to replace the Chief Magistrate.
Do you support that statement on 27 April or don’t you, Leader of the Opposition? She either does or she doesn’t. She is either a leader or she is irrelevant. There are only two sides to the coin. God help us if you were in war situation! ‘It’s untenable. Let’s go, it’s untenable’, and you would leave half your troops behind.
What you do is you get in and you fight, and that is what happened with regard to the Chief Magistrate. You get in and you fight for the case that is right - was right from the outset and has proved to be right in the courts.
Mr Stirling: So you would do it again.
Mr BURKE: The member for Nhulunbuy says: ‘So you would do it again’. I will tell you what the executive of government can do. If you read the transcript of the court...
Ms Martin You were a joke on radio this morning. You don’t even understand the decision. You are a fool of a man.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: The mouse of a leader is squeaking. I was trying to hear what she said.
Ms Martin: I said you are a fool.
Mr BURKE: A fool! Now she says I am a fool. Apart from abuse, she never says anything of substance. How about some effort to support the Chief Magistrate over the last seven weeks? That in reality is what we are talking about here.
What came out of the ruling yesterday is that it is the prerogative, not affecting the separation of powers, for the executive of government to appoint judges and magistrates on terms that they see fit. It is absolutely clear in the judgment that it does not affect the separation of powers. It is the responsibility and right of the parliament to provide resources for decisions of the executive. And, to complete the equilateral triangle, it is the absolute obligation and freedom of the judiciary to sit on cases without interference from parliament or from the executive. That is the fact of the matter.
The suggestion that people have tried to raise consistently in this whole episode - we could track back through the whole lot but the reality is that justice...
Mr Stirling: But you wouldn’t remember it.
Mr BURKE: I remembered all right. Justice Olney made it very clear that the case was hopeless from the outset. The allegations that were made against the Chief Magistrate in terms of his conduct on the bench were scandalous and irrelevant. And all of that was supported by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory.
Ms Martin: It was created by you.
Mr BURKE: Right, the Leader of the Opposition is now on the record saying it was all created by me. The whole situation was created by me. Well, go back and read what Justice Olney said.
Mr Henderson: It was what Shane Stone did, what the president of your party did.
Mr BURKE: Only through ignorance would the Labor Party continue to suggest that the situation was created by me or by Shane Stone. The situation was ...
Mr Stirling: Was it Hugh Bradley’s fault?
Mr BURKE: Read the judgment. We know whose fault it was. It was created by Michael Jones, Gordon Renouf, Syd Stirling, Kim Beazley and your mates down south. The leader sat in the corner saying: ‘I will just put the bunker over me and see what happens for a few weeks before I decide which way I will go. I will let old Syd here run it for a while’.
The real situation is that there was no case. There was nothing illegal. There was nothing untoward. It was an invention of NAALAS lawyers that was supported by the Labor Party of the Northern Territory. To my mind, it is an absolute disgrace that the same sections of that profession, who stand so high and mighty …
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr BURKE: Your partner is one of them. What does he think about the whole episode?
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr BURKE: You’ll be right, member for Wanguri. I am helping you, mate - no worries. You have to lead. You can’t sit down in the bunker and say nothing in this sort of episode. You can’t let your deputy speak on behalf of the Labor Party and pretend to be the leader. You either lead them or you follow. And while you’re at it, try not to mislead Territorians.
What we have seen in this whole episode is what I believe has been a disgrace to the legal profession. Labor supporters sit on their high horse and declare how mighty the legal system is, how mightily independent it is, the power and authority of the courts, and yet try to mount a deputation and try to destroy him in the media, all because they don’t like the situation that comes from the fact that we have mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. Another point was made very clearly in the court yesterday by inference, and that is there is no conflict at all with the issue of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory that affects the separation of powers one iota.
Mr SPEAKER: We have had two questions in very close to half an hour. I would appreciate it if answers were kept short and interjections were kept to an absolute minimum.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016