Mr MILLS - 2001-02-28
In July last year, the Prime Minister and Chief Minister agreed on a pre-court diversion scheme for juvenile offenders. Can the minister advise honourable members of the progress in implementing the scheme and how many juveniles have been diverted from the court process?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Blain for his interest in these important matters. Security in our homes and making sure our property is safe is a paramount priority of this government. We have taken some very decisive action to ensure that is the case. Mandatory sentencing is one obvious example. During the course of this parliamentary term we have kept to our election promise to increase police numbers by 150. That will be achieved over the next month or so, with the final officers now in training, and we will reach an all-time high of some 929 police officers in the Northern Territory. As recently demonstrated by the Industries Commission report, we have twice the number of police per capita of 100 000 people than any other place in Australia, and we spend more than twice of any other jurisdiction on police. That demonstrates the commitment of this government to making sure that Territorians are safe.
There is always, however, more to be done. In terms of mandatory sentencing and juveniles, police have now issued more than 650 warnings and cautions to juveniles who would otherwise have been subject to the formal justice system since the introduction of the juvenile diversion scheme. The scheme was implemented in September. Since that time, 378 verbal warnings for minor and trivial offences, 148 written warnings and 147 formal cautions have been issued. I hasten to add that the scheme is not a let off for juveniles. Some 15% of juveniles have been denied diversion by police because of the seriousness of the offence, or the impact of the offence on the victims. As a government, we are determined to ensure it is the victims who are taken into consideration in these matters. In recent times, all too much emphasis has been placed on the perpetrator of crime and, sadly, the concerns of victims in many parts of Australia have gone wanting. Well, we are not part of that. We recognise and respect the rights of victims - and will continue to do so.
Nearly 75 diversion programs have been formally approved. A further 30 are undergoing assessment, and it is anticipated that 100 programs will be in place in the near future. Some 200 police will be completing professional training to facilitate victim- offender and family conferencing, and 42 officers have been trained as instructors in the operation of the scheme.
Ms Martin: But why do you need a new juvenile detention centre?
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition interjects. She was one of those who said the scheme was a band aid measure or a smoke-and- mirrors trick to take the heat out of tough sentencing. It was nothing of the kind.
The number of juveniles who have been diverted clearly demonstrates that the scheme is successful. So, too, does the fact that 15% of juveniles who have come before police have not been directed to the diversion program. It has been decided the alleged crimes are such that the victims’ rights should be justly recognised, and the cases should be processed through the normal legal system.
Notwithstanding the interjections from the member opposite who does not want to hear what is happening to protect Territorians, I am pleased to assure Territorians that, where possible, if juveniles have committed a misdemeanour, if it is a bit of a run-off-the-rails situation, they are given a second chance. They are given an opportunity to be counselled, together with the victims. I believe all Territorians would join the government in saying: ‘Let’s give young Territorians an opportunity, if they have run-off the rails, to correct themselves’. On the other hand, however, if they do undertake a serious crime against members of the community, they are not going to be diverted; they are going to be channelled into the system.
There has been much mirth from the members opposite during the course of my providing this advice to the House. It is interesting, isn’t it, that one rule applies to the Labor Party and another rule applies to everyone else.
Formerly, all these juveniles should have been diverted and never placed before the courts. But as soon as one breaks into the Leader of the Opposition’s house, she says that this 15-year-old should be off to gaol. She tries to tell us there is a scheme the Labor Party will implement that will ensure they go to gaol. Well, formerly your position has been that no 15-year-old should go to gaol. This week, because they broke into your house, circumstances are different. Notwithstanding that, you are trying to demonstrate forcefully that you would continue with tough sentencing whereas, in fact, your policies demonstrate clearly, as the Chief Minister illustrated with the letter that you sent to lawyers begging for their money, that you would do away with mandatory sentencing.
You cannot, on the one hand, state in the newspaper that you will be tough because someone broke into your house and then, on the other hand, send begging letters for the money of solicitors so that you can get rid of mandatory sentencing.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Blain for his interest in these important matters. Security in our homes and making sure our property is safe is a paramount priority of this government. We have taken some very decisive action to ensure that is the case. Mandatory sentencing is one obvious example. During the course of this parliamentary term we have kept to our election promise to increase police numbers by 150. That will be achieved over the next month or so, with the final officers now in training, and we will reach an all-time high of some 929 police officers in the Northern Territory. As recently demonstrated by the Industries Commission report, we have twice the number of police per capita of 100 000 people than any other place in Australia, and we spend more than twice of any other jurisdiction on police. That demonstrates the commitment of this government to making sure that Territorians are safe.
There is always, however, more to be done. In terms of mandatory sentencing and juveniles, police have now issued more than 650 warnings and cautions to juveniles who would otherwise have been subject to the formal justice system since the introduction of the juvenile diversion scheme. The scheme was implemented in September. Since that time, 378 verbal warnings for minor and trivial offences, 148 written warnings and 147 formal cautions have been issued. I hasten to add that the scheme is not a let off for juveniles. Some 15% of juveniles have been denied diversion by police because of the seriousness of the offence, or the impact of the offence on the victims. As a government, we are determined to ensure it is the victims who are taken into consideration in these matters. In recent times, all too much emphasis has been placed on the perpetrator of crime and, sadly, the concerns of victims in many parts of Australia have gone wanting. Well, we are not part of that. We recognise and respect the rights of victims - and will continue to do so.
Nearly 75 diversion programs have been formally approved. A further 30 are undergoing assessment, and it is anticipated that 100 programs will be in place in the near future. Some 200 police will be completing professional training to facilitate victim- offender and family conferencing, and 42 officers have been trained as instructors in the operation of the scheme.
Ms Martin: But why do you need a new juvenile detention centre?
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition interjects. She was one of those who said the scheme was a band aid measure or a smoke-and- mirrors trick to take the heat out of tough sentencing. It was nothing of the kind.
The number of juveniles who have been diverted clearly demonstrates that the scheme is successful. So, too, does the fact that 15% of juveniles who have come before police have not been directed to the diversion program. It has been decided the alleged crimes are such that the victims’ rights should be justly recognised, and the cases should be processed through the normal legal system.
Notwithstanding the interjections from the member opposite who does not want to hear what is happening to protect Territorians, I am pleased to assure Territorians that, where possible, if juveniles have committed a misdemeanour, if it is a bit of a run-off-the-rails situation, they are given a second chance. They are given an opportunity to be counselled, together with the victims. I believe all Territorians would join the government in saying: ‘Let’s give young Territorians an opportunity, if they have run-off the rails, to correct themselves’. On the other hand, however, if they do undertake a serious crime against members of the community, they are not going to be diverted; they are going to be channelled into the system.
There has been much mirth from the members opposite during the course of my providing this advice to the House. It is interesting, isn’t it, that one rule applies to the Labor Party and another rule applies to everyone else.
Formerly, all these juveniles should have been diverted and never placed before the courts. But as soon as one breaks into the Leader of the Opposition’s house, she says that this 15-year-old should be off to gaol. She tries to tell us there is a scheme the Labor Party will implement that will ensure they go to gaol. Well, formerly your position has been that no 15-year-old should go to gaol. This week, because they broke into your house, circumstances are different. Notwithstanding that, you are trying to demonstrate forcefully that you would continue with tough sentencing whereas, in fact, your policies demonstrate clearly, as the Chief Minister illustrated with the letter that you sent to lawyers begging for their money, that you would do away with mandatory sentencing.
You cannot, on the one hand, state in the newspaper that you will be tough because someone broke into your house and then, on the other hand, send begging letters for the money of solicitors so that you can get rid of mandatory sentencing.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016