Mr STIRLING - 2001-07-05
Mr PALMER (Leader of Government Business): Mr Speaker, I wish to advise the House of the absence this morning during Question Time of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Resource Development who are in Timor for the signing of the gas arrangements.
I would ask that questions intended for the Chief Minister be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister, and any questions intended for the Minister for Resource Development be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister or the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Central Australian Affairs.
Mr STIRLING to DEPUTY CHIEF MINISTER
Residences used to distribute dangerous drugs, known as drug houses, are a significant problem in the Territory. At these houses drugs are bought and sold as is well known to all the community except, apparently, the Country Liberal Party. The money for these purchases often comes from criminal activities. Last night the Country Liberal Party voted down Labor’s legislative amendment which would have widened police powers to tackle drug houses. Will the minister take this opportunity to tell Territorians why the Country Liberal Party has no new initiatives to tackle drug houses and why it blocked Labor’s move?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I would be delighted, whilst Question Time is being broadcast, to be able to explain the extent of the legislation that was passed last night, not supported, might I say, by the opposition. Indeed, the opposition were so enthusiastic about this piece of legislation and, theatrically at least, said to be concerned about law and order. If that were the case, you would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might have participated in the debate, but we did not hear a squeak from her in relation to this very important piece of legislation.
Territorians should be aware of the fact that whilst this legislation has been before the House, the Leader of the Opposition during that course of time, and previously, has tried to indicate that she is concerned about law and order and then does not even take the opportunity to contribute or participate in the debate. I will leave it to Territorians to determine whether that demonstrates a commitment to law and order or not on behalf of the opposition, and in particular the Opposition Leader.
As to the legislation itself, the reason why the amendment was not accepted was because we sought advice from police in relation to the amendment to determine whether or not it was an appropriate amendment. The advice from police was that it was not, for two reasons.
Dr Toyne: ... the Hell’s Angels, are they?
Mr REED: I will pick up that interjection from the member for Stuart, that the police are supportive of and sympathetic to the Hell’s Angels because it is worth putting on the record. That further commits the opposition to the fact that they are not serious about law and order. For a frontbench member - not that there’s many of them left - of the Labor Party to make a comment of that kind, that the police are supportive of Hell’s Angels or other persons who might be trafficking drugs, clearly demonstrates their lack of commitment to this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition now has a reason to get rid of another member of her front bench. If she has taken that action against the member for Arnhem, Jack Ah Kit, who she gave the sack for making a one-line comment, there’s no better reason. There’s no better reason to sack a frontbencher than him making an assertion that the police are supportive of the Hell’s Angels and their drug dealings. If you want to sack somebody, sack him, if you’re in a sacking mood, because that is an outrageous slur on police. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to now extend an apology to the Northern Territory police force.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is misquoting me. I didn’t say supportive.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you believe in some way you’ve been maligned you can come and talk to me about it and we will talk about an explanation.
Mr REED: You cannot weasel out of it now as easily as that. You made the comment. You should be ashamed of yourself and there is no alternative but for your boss to give you the sack.
In terms of that legislation, can I say - and I explained this to the member last night in the course of the debate when he was moving the amendment - that the legislation covers the residences or the places where those types of activities might be occurring. If they are overt activities, such as those to which he refers, then police were more than satisfied that the legislation passed last night would cover those circumstances and give police adequate powers to act. If they are covert activities in terms of drug trafficking, police already have more than adequate powers to be able to address those matters. And it was for that reason that police did not think the amendment was necessary.
In terms of this piece of legislation, the initial response from the Labor Party was, ‘I bet you haven’t got any advice from police in relation to this legislation. It is something that you lot have drawn up.’ Well, we did seek advice from police and we accepted that advice. That is very much why the legislation was passed in the Assembly last night. When we sought advice from police in relation to the suitability of the amendment, they told us, ‘Do not do it’, and we accepted that advice.
On the one hand they want us to be asking police for advice and to accept it - which we did in relation to the legislation - but when it relates to their activities they expect us to reject police advice. We will not do that.
In closing can I say, the legislation will serve Territorians well, and the Leader of the Opposition now has no alternative but to sack the member for Stuart from her front bench, given his comments in relation to the Hell’s Angels, and the fact that he is of the view the police are in support of them. It is an outrageous statement.
I would ask that questions intended for the Chief Minister be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister, and any questions intended for the Minister for Resource Development be directed to the Deputy Chief Minister or the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Central Australian Affairs.
Police Powers - Drug Houses
Mr STIRLING to DEPUTY CHIEF MINISTER
Residences used to distribute dangerous drugs, known as drug houses, are a significant problem in the Territory. At these houses drugs are bought and sold as is well known to all the community except, apparently, the Country Liberal Party. The money for these purchases often comes from criminal activities. Last night the Country Liberal Party voted down Labor’s legislative amendment which would have widened police powers to tackle drug houses. Will the minister take this opportunity to tell Territorians why the Country Liberal Party has no new initiatives to tackle drug houses and why it blocked Labor’s move?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I would be delighted, whilst Question Time is being broadcast, to be able to explain the extent of the legislation that was passed last night, not supported, might I say, by the opposition. Indeed, the opposition were so enthusiastic about this piece of legislation and, theatrically at least, said to be concerned about law and order. If that were the case, you would have thought the Leader of the Opposition might have participated in the debate, but we did not hear a squeak from her in relation to this very important piece of legislation.
Territorians should be aware of the fact that whilst this legislation has been before the House, the Leader of the Opposition during that course of time, and previously, has tried to indicate that she is concerned about law and order and then does not even take the opportunity to contribute or participate in the debate. I will leave it to Territorians to determine whether that demonstrates a commitment to law and order or not on behalf of the opposition, and in particular the Opposition Leader.
As to the legislation itself, the reason why the amendment was not accepted was because we sought advice from police in relation to the amendment to determine whether or not it was an appropriate amendment. The advice from police was that it was not, for two reasons.
Dr Toyne: ... the Hell’s Angels, are they?
Mr REED: I will pick up that interjection from the member for Stuart, that the police are supportive of and sympathetic to the Hell’s Angels because it is worth putting on the record. That further commits the opposition to the fact that they are not serious about law and order. For a frontbench member - not that there’s many of them left - of the Labor Party to make a comment of that kind, that the police are supportive of Hell’s Angels or other persons who might be trafficking drugs, clearly demonstrates their lack of commitment to this matter.
The Leader of the Opposition now has a reason to get rid of another member of her front bench. If she has taken that action against the member for Arnhem, Jack Ah Kit, who she gave the sack for making a one-line comment, there’s no better reason. There’s no better reason to sack a frontbencher than him making an assertion that the police are supportive of the Hell’s Angels and their drug dealings. If you want to sack somebody, sack him, if you’re in a sacking mood, because that is an outrageous slur on police. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to now extend an apology to the Northern Territory police force.
Dr TOYNE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! The minister is misquoting me. I didn’t say supportive.
Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. If you believe in some way you’ve been maligned you can come and talk to me about it and we will talk about an explanation.
Mr REED: You cannot weasel out of it now as easily as that. You made the comment. You should be ashamed of yourself and there is no alternative but for your boss to give you the sack.
In terms of that legislation, can I say - and I explained this to the member last night in the course of the debate when he was moving the amendment - that the legislation covers the residences or the places where those types of activities might be occurring. If they are overt activities, such as those to which he refers, then police were more than satisfied that the legislation passed last night would cover those circumstances and give police adequate powers to act. If they are covert activities in terms of drug trafficking, police already have more than adequate powers to be able to address those matters. And it was for that reason that police did not think the amendment was necessary.
In terms of this piece of legislation, the initial response from the Labor Party was, ‘I bet you haven’t got any advice from police in relation to this legislation. It is something that you lot have drawn up.’ Well, we did seek advice from police and we accepted that advice. That is very much why the legislation was passed in the Assembly last night. When we sought advice from police in relation to the suitability of the amendment, they told us, ‘Do not do it’, and we accepted that advice.
On the one hand they want us to be asking police for advice and to accept it - which we did in relation to the legislation - but when it relates to their activities they expect us to reject police advice. We will not do that.
In closing can I say, the legislation will serve Territorians well, and the Leader of the Opposition now has no alternative but to sack the member for Stuart from her front bench, given his comments in relation to the Hell’s Angels, and the fact that he is of the view the police are in support of them. It is an outrageous statement.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016