Mr BALCH - 1999-06-08
We have seen how the Criminal Lawyers’ Association is trying to paint a highly inaccurate picture of mandatory sentencing for visitors. What is the tourism minister’s reaction to the association’s attempt to drag the tourism industry into its political campaign against mandatory sentencing.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it’s a great shame that the Criminal Lawyers’ Association didn’t take heed of the comments of the Chief Justice last week when he called for more fact and less rhetoric in the mandatory sentencing debate.
Mr Bailey: And he was talking about you..
Mr Stirling: He was talking about you.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection from the opposition Police spokesman, the opposition Attorney-General, and the opposition leader, because they spoke collectively, I would think, for 2 hours last week in the mandatory sentencing debate. Two hours they spoke on behalf of the offender and didn’t mention the word ‘victim’ once. Didn’t mention the word ‘victim’ once. That’s where they’re coming from - in bed with the criminal lawyers.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: I’m sure that the tourism industry would take great exemption to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association using the tourism industry. It’s the second largest income earner in the Northern Territory. It is the largest single employer in the Northern Territory and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association I think, sadly for their own purposes, are using that industry as a means of arguing against mandatory sentencing. It is a sad reflection on the law profession that it seems to have a vested interest here in that mandatory sentencing will require a little bit less work for lawyers. I wonder if there’s a little bit of self interest there in protecting their own patch rather than being concerned about the constituents. I’m sad that the criminal lawyers don’t go and talk to some of my constituents, because if they did, they’d change their name to the Victims’ Lawyers Association. And that’d be a great advance forward for them - to go out there and portray the needs of Territorians.
But let’s look at what Jon Tippett, on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association, had to say. He said that tourists should be told a scuffle in a bar resulting in damage to property valued at as little as 50, such as a glass, could see them returning involuntarily to the Northern Territory for 14 days jail, and if they have prior conviction even 20 years old, the sentence will be a minimum of 3 months. You’d expect the lawyer ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: I know you’re a supporter of the offender, we know you don’t care about the victim. You don’t care about people getting their homes wrecked. You don’t care about a tourist coming up here, having their car stolen, and ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr REED: ... and someone who’s perpetrated the crime against the tourist getting a suspended sentence. You’re not worried about the victim - we are. We do concern ourselves with the victims of crime, and we are going to make sure that those who offend against people, whether they be Territorians or visitors to the Northern Territory, are adequately punished.
The statement that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... Mr Tippett made ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much interjection from the opposition. I would indicate that the member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Wanguri and the Leader of the Opposition are over the top with their comment.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the statement by Mr Tippett fails to acknowledge the fact that the exceptional circumstance amendments that were put in place last week here in this Assembly take account of those trivial offences, such as breaking a glass. So he is patently incorrect, patently misleading, in suggesting to people that they will go to jail, having committed such an offence.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr REED: I know you’re a lover of the offender not of the victim. You can answer to Territorians about your lack of concern for victims.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barkly.
Mr REED: I dare say that if you were in the class room at the Clyde Fenton Primary School, and you behaved the way you are in front of these students, you’d be thrown out of the class, and you deserve to be thrown out of the class. Why don’t you get a little bit of integrity and show a little bit of honesty and self control in front of the school children …
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister get on with the answer to the question please.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, only property offences committed in the Territory after mandatory sentencing was introduced in March 1997 trigger the application of a mandatory minimum sentence. The criminal lawyers are saying that that is not the case. Can I say, though, that although offences recorded 20 years ago are irrelevant for the purposes of mandatory sentencing, they may be taken into account as an aggravating factor as part of the court’s general discretion in sentencing. But they don’t automatically trigger it.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: That’s right. It is worthy of note that these are minimum sentences. If the courts consider that the offence was of such magnitude that it should attract a larger sentence then they have the ability to do so.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri.
Mr REED: Mr Tippett also said that the visitor should know that any prior convictions, no matter how trifling, even one committed as a child, will count under the mandatory sentencing regime. This is a professional lawyer, Mr Speaker. ‘Professional lawyer’ – I have to put it in inverted commas.
Any convictions of a juvenile, I have to advise listeners to this Question Time and members of the House, either inside or outside the NT are irrelevant for the purposes of mandatory sentences for an adult offender.
Mr Bailey: No, they’re not. Read your legislation!
Mr REED: Well, you must be advising Mr Tippett. That augurs …
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is warned. One more outburst and he will be out for an hour.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I do ask Mr Tippett and the Criminal Lawyers Association to get a better grasp on what is happening in relation to mandatory sentencing, the amendments that were put through last week, and to understand that this government is acting on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory who seek to have people who trash their homes, who steal their cars, who damage their property sentenced in a way that they can relate to and that the community desires - that is locked up. It sends a message that the community doesn’t agree with their behaviour and if they commit again, they’re going to find themselves in greater trouble.
Nothing will deter tourists coming to the Northern Territory in relation to this legislation. In fact, it will encourage them because they know that if they are unfortunate enough, whilst they’re here to have their property trashed, then the offender will go to jail when he’s caught, and that’s why we’re on the side of the victim and that’s why the members opposite don’t support the victims.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it’s a great shame that the Criminal Lawyers’ Association didn’t take heed of the comments of the Chief Justice last week when he called for more fact and less rhetoric in the mandatory sentencing debate.
Mr Bailey: And he was talking about you..
Mr Stirling: He was talking about you.
Mr REED: I pick up the interjection from the opposition Police spokesman, the opposition Attorney-General, and the opposition leader, because they spoke collectively, I would think, for 2 hours last week in the mandatory sentencing debate. Two hours they spoke on behalf of the offender and didn’t mention the word ‘victim’ once. Didn’t mention the word ‘victim’ once. That’s where they’re coming from - in bed with the criminal lawyers.
Mr Stirling interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: I’m sure that the tourism industry would take great exemption to the Criminal Lawyers’ Association using the tourism industry. It’s the second largest income earner in the Northern Territory. It is the largest single employer in the Northern Territory and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association I think, sadly for their own purposes, are using that industry as a means of arguing against mandatory sentencing. It is a sad reflection on the law profession that it seems to have a vested interest here in that mandatory sentencing will require a little bit less work for lawyers. I wonder if there’s a little bit of self interest there in protecting their own patch rather than being concerned about the constituents. I’m sad that the criminal lawyers don’t go and talk to some of my constituents, because if they did, they’d change their name to the Victims’ Lawyers Association. And that’d be a great advance forward for them - to go out there and portray the needs of Territorians.
But let’s look at what Jon Tippett, on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association, had to say. He said that tourists should be told a scuffle in a bar resulting in damage to property valued at as little as 50, such as a glass, could see them returning involuntarily to the Northern Territory for 14 days jail, and if they have prior conviction even 20 years old, the sentence will be a minimum of 3 months. You’d expect the lawyer ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: I know you’re a supporter of the offender, we know you don’t care about the victim. You don’t care about people getting their homes wrecked. You don’t care about a tourist coming up here, having their car stolen, and ...
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Wanguri.
Mr REED: ... and someone who’s perpetrated the crime against the tourist getting a suspended sentence. You’re not worried about the victim - we are. We do concern ourselves with the victims of crime, and we are going to make sure that those who offend against people, whether they be Territorians or visitors to the Northern Territory, are adequately punished.
The statement that ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... Mr Tippett made ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat for a moment. There is far too much interjection from the opposition. I would indicate that the member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Wanguri and the Leader of the Opposition are over the top with their comment.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the statement by Mr Tippett fails to acknowledge the fact that the exceptional circumstance amendments that were put in place last week here in this Assembly take account of those trivial offences, such as breaking a glass. So he is patently incorrect, patently misleading, in suggesting to people that they will go to jail, having committed such an offence.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr REED: I know you’re a lover of the offender not of the victim. You can answer to Territorians about your lack of concern for victims.
Mrs Hickey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Barkly.
Mr REED: I dare say that if you were in the class room at the Clyde Fenton Primary School, and you behaved the way you are in front of these students, you’d be thrown out of the class, and you deserve to be thrown out of the class. Why don’t you get a little bit of integrity and show a little bit of honesty and self control in front of the school children …
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister get on with the answer to the question please.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, only property offences committed in the Territory after mandatory sentencing was introduced in March 1997 trigger the application of a mandatory minimum sentence. The criminal lawyers are saying that that is not the case. Can I say, though, that although offences recorded 20 years ago are irrelevant for the purposes of mandatory sentencing, they may be taken into account as an aggravating factor as part of the court’s general discretion in sentencing. But they don’t automatically trigger it.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: That’s right. It is worthy of note that these are minimum sentences. If the courts consider that the offence was of such magnitude that it should attract a larger sentence then they have the ability to do so.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri.
Mr REED: Mr Tippett also said that the visitor should know that any prior convictions, no matter how trifling, even one committed as a child, will count under the mandatory sentencing regime. This is a professional lawyer, Mr Speaker. ‘Professional lawyer’ – I have to put it in inverted commas.
Any convictions of a juvenile, I have to advise listeners to this Question Time and members of the House, either inside or outside the NT are irrelevant for the purposes of mandatory sentences for an adult offender.
Mr Bailey: No, they’re not. Read your legislation!
Mr REED: Well, you must be advising Mr Tippett. That augurs …
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri is warned. One more outburst and he will be out for an hour.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, I do ask Mr Tippett and the Criminal Lawyers Association to get a better grasp on what is happening in relation to mandatory sentencing, the amendments that were put through last week, and to understand that this government is acting on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory who seek to have people who trash their homes, who steal their cars, who damage their property sentenced in a way that they can relate to and that the community desires - that is locked up. It sends a message that the community doesn’t agree with their behaviour and if they commit again, they’re going to find themselves in greater trouble.
Nothing will deter tourists coming to the Northern Territory in relation to this legislation. In fact, it will encourage them because they know that if they are unfortunate enough, whilst they’re here to have their property trashed, then the offender will go to jail when he’s caught, and that’s why we’re on the side of the victim and that’s why the members opposite don’t support the victims.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016