Mr ELFERINK - 1997-11-26
The front page of last Saturday's edition of the NT News contains a report that claimed a police officer threatened a person with being sent to jail if an outstanding fine of $1000 was not paid immediately. Can the minister advise the House whether or not the newspaper story was correct? If not, could he outline the true story which involved a prominent member of Darwin media.
Mr Bailey: Is this one where they got it wrong?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for putting on the record his disdain for the Northern Territory Police Force. I think Territorians would be more responsive and supportive in respect of their police force enforcing the law and making sure that the recipients of fines pay them. Most of the people who receive fines do pay them. If you want some semblance of recognition and respect for the law ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Madam Speaker.
Mr Stone: You are the one who took the point - remember? You are an idiot.
Mr BAILEY: My point of order is that the Deputy Chief Minister is misleading parliament by suggesting that I made comments regarding the actions of police. If he wants to suggest that I have made such statements, he must do so by way of a substantive motion. It is quite clear that the comments that I made had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the police, but referred to comments made in respect of the accuracy of the NT News.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the article that we are talking about was about the Northern Territory police. The member is a goose. By definition, if he is commenting on the article, he is commenting on the Northern Territory police. Sadly, he does not understand that. However, let us leave it to Territorians to read the Hansard and they can make their assessment as to whether or not he was denigrating the Northern Territory police. I am sure they will be able to determine that for themselves. I quote from the NT News of last Saturday:
A woman who did not wish to be identified said she watched as her husband was threatened with being sent to jail last Wednesday.
She said a police officer who knocked on their door demanded immediate payment of more than $1000 for an outstanding fine.
The officer told the woman
Page 22
he was the same officer who arrested a 16-year-old girl who was locked up for not paying a $25 fine ... The woman said:
`He wasn't even prepared to wait for my husband to get the money from the bank'.
The article reports that the woman said her husband had told police officers on 2 previous occasions that he wanted to contest the warrants. They had respected that, and determined that they would not pursue the matter at that time. However, last Wednesday, when a policeman approached this particular person, a well-known journalist in Darwin, the officer spoke in these terms: `Sorry, I think you have had more than enough chances. You have fines which are outstanding and they should be paid'. I believe the police officer acted correctly, given that this person had been given 2 previous opportunities to pay the fines.
The story involves a well-known media figure. The person has business and family connections with a transport company. I want to put this on the record because it demonstrates the effectiveness of police activities in enforcing the law in the Northern Territory. I would like to ensure that the facts are presented rather than a presentation of the story that was neither entirely correct nor reflected the true circumstances. As a result of an inspection of a company truck by a transport inspector some time ago, and a subsequent failure to pay fines resulting from offences ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... committed involving the truck, a warrant of commitment was issued on the name of the registered owner of the truck. This owner is the local media figure to whom I referred. This person failed also to pay a fine relating to another traffic matter, and a further warrant of commitment was issued. The police executed those 2 warrants late last week.
On 2 previous occasions, police had spoken to the person named in the warrant and had attempted to do what the law requires them to do - that is, either to obtain payment for the unpaid fines or to arrest the person and convey them to the Peter McAulay Centre. On both previous occasions, the person claimed he was challenging the warrant relating to the truck. Police accepted those excuses, perhaps because this person was a known media figure.
On the most recent occasion, the police officer explained the process - that warrants were in existence and that, if the person did not pay the warrants immediately, he would be arrested and conveyed to the Peter McAulay Centre. The police officer did not accept the excuse previously offered by the media figure. This person then left the police officer with his partner while he showered and made a phone call. While waiting for his return, this person's partner started to talk about the recent case of the 15-year-old who had been arrested in relation to unpaid fines. The police officer acknowledged that he knew about this case, as he had been the arresting officer. This was a statement of fact, and not an instance of boasting on the part of the police officer. Further small talk followed in which the police officer talked about the total amount of unpaid fines in the Territory.
On her partner's return, the woman suggested that she would meet them at the Peter McAulay Centre after withdrawing cash from the bank to pay. However, the police officer, going beyond what would be expected of him, offered to make it easier for the couple by going to the bank with them, thereby saving a trip to the Peter McAulay Centre by them, and the couple agreed to take this course of action.
It is unfortunate that the real details of this matter were not conveyed to Territorians, and it is unfortunate also that members opposite do not recognise that, when a fines system is in place, it is necessary to enforce it. Failure to enforce it shows disrespect for that majority of Territorians who do pay their fines. Enforcement encourages people who have to pay fines to do so by demonstrating that not paying brings a simple consequence. Warnings are in place to ensure that that consequence will follow if fines are not paid. That consequence is confinement in jail. Do members opposite want some other system? Do they want to go even softer on crime than they are already?
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: At the same time, they try to tell us that they want to have a safer Northern Territory and to have the property of people protected. They should not be so ambiguous in their policies or so 2-faced when presenting them.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: I support the actions of police officers in enforcing the law in the Northern Territory, and I encourage them to continue the
Page 23
performance of their job in their very professional and helpful way.
Madam SPEAKER: I inform the member for Wanguri that I will not tolerate his interjections much longer. I suggest he exercise a little discipline and self-control. We have heard enough of him during Question Time.
Page 24
Mr Bailey: Is this one where they got it wrong?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Wanguri for putting on the record his disdain for the Northern Territory Police Force. I think Territorians would be more responsive and supportive in respect of their police force enforcing the law and making sure that the recipients of fines pay them. Most of the people who receive fines do pay them. If you want some semblance of recognition and respect for the law ...
Mr BAILEY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Madam Speaker.
Mr Stone: You are the one who took the point - remember? You are an idiot.
Mr BAILEY: My point of order is that the Deputy Chief Minister is misleading parliament by suggesting that I made comments regarding the actions of police. If he wants to suggest that I have made such statements, he must do so by way of a substantive motion. It is quite clear that the comments that I made had nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the police, but referred to comments made in respect of the accuracy of the NT News.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, the article that we are talking about was about the Northern Territory police. The member is a goose. By definition, if he is commenting on the article, he is commenting on the Northern Territory police. Sadly, he does not understand that. However, let us leave it to Territorians to read the Hansard and they can make their assessment as to whether or not he was denigrating the Northern Territory police. I am sure they will be able to determine that for themselves. I quote from the NT News of last Saturday:
A woman who did not wish to be identified said she watched as her husband was threatened with being sent to jail last Wednesday.
She said a police officer who knocked on their door demanded immediate payment of more than $1000 for an outstanding fine.
The officer told the woman
Page 22
he was the same officer who arrested a 16-year-old girl who was locked up for not paying a $25 fine ... The woman said:
`He wasn't even prepared to wait for my husband to get the money from the bank'.
The article reports that the woman said her husband had told police officers on 2 previous occasions that he wanted to contest the warrants. They had respected that, and determined that they would not pursue the matter at that time. However, last Wednesday, when a policeman approached this particular person, a well-known journalist in Darwin, the officer spoke in these terms: `Sorry, I think you have had more than enough chances. You have fines which are outstanding and they should be paid'. I believe the police officer acted correctly, given that this person had been given 2 previous opportunities to pay the fines.
The story involves a well-known media figure. The person has business and family connections with a transport company. I want to put this on the record because it demonstrates the effectiveness of police activities in enforcing the law in the Northern Territory. I would like to ensure that the facts are presented rather than a presentation of the story that was neither entirely correct nor reflected the true circumstances. As a result of an inspection of a company truck by a transport inspector some time ago, and a subsequent failure to pay fines resulting from offences ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... committed involving the truck, a warrant of commitment was issued on the name of the registered owner of the truck. This owner is the local media figure to whom I referred. This person failed also to pay a fine relating to another traffic matter, and a further warrant of commitment was issued. The police executed those 2 warrants late last week.
On 2 previous occasions, police had spoken to the person named in the warrant and had attempted to do what the law requires them to do - that is, either to obtain payment for the unpaid fines or to arrest the person and convey them to the Peter McAulay Centre. On both previous occasions, the person claimed he was challenging the warrant relating to the truck. Police accepted those excuses, perhaps because this person was a known media figure.
On the most recent occasion, the police officer explained the process - that warrants were in existence and that, if the person did not pay the warrants immediately, he would be arrested and conveyed to the Peter McAulay Centre. The police officer did not accept the excuse previously offered by the media figure. This person then left the police officer with his partner while he showered and made a phone call. While waiting for his return, this person's partner started to talk about the recent case of the 15-year-old who had been arrested in relation to unpaid fines. The police officer acknowledged that he knew about this case, as he had been the arresting officer. This was a statement of fact, and not an instance of boasting on the part of the police officer. Further small talk followed in which the police officer talked about the total amount of unpaid fines in the Territory.
On her partner's return, the woman suggested that she would meet them at the Peter McAulay Centre after withdrawing cash from the bank to pay. However, the police officer, going beyond what would be expected of him, offered to make it easier for the couple by going to the bank with them, thereby saving a trip to the Peter McAulay Centre by them, and the couple agreed to take this course of action.
It is unfortunate that the real details of this matter were not conveyed to Territorians, and it is unfortunate also that members opposite do not recognise that, when a fines system is in place, it is necessary to enforce it. Failure to enforce it shows disrespect for that majority of Territorians who do pay their fines. Enforcement encourages people who have to pay fines to do so by demonstrating that not paying brings a simple consequence. Warnings are in place to ensure that that consequence will follow if fines are not paid. That consequence is confinement in jail. Do members opposite want some other system? Do they want to go even softer on crime than they are already?
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: At the same time, they try to tell us that they want to have a safer Northern Territory and to have the property of people protected. They should not be so ambiguous in their policies or so 2-faced when presenting them.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: I support the actions of police officers in enforcing the law in the Northern Territory, and I encourage them to continue the
Page 23
performance of their job in their very professional and helpful way.
Madam SPEAKER: I inform the member for Wanguri that I will not tolerate his interjections much longer. I suggest he exercise a little discipline and self-control. We have heard enough of him during Question Time.
Page 24
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016