Mr BAILEY - 1999-06-08
The clear-up rate for property crime in Darwin is around 15%. This means that 85% of offenders don’t get caught. 85% of victims of crime never get to see the offender appropriately punished. How is pouring taxpayers’ money into bolstering the Country Liberal Party’s failed mandatory sentencing regime, and not improving the clear-up rate, helping these victims of crime?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, within that question is a criticism of the police, and that is certainly something that I wouldn’t be running out here too often. The opposition tries to run a number issues to create an argument. The issue is very simple - punish the guilty. That’s what mandatory sentencing is all about. If you break into someone’s house and you get convicted in the court, you’re going to jail. That is what mandatory sentencing is all about. The rationale behind mandatory sentencing is to express the community’s displeasure as to the gravity of the crime. That’s what it’s all about and that’s a relevant aspect of sentencing.
With regards to the clear-up rate in the Northern Territory, and in other states of Australia I might add, we’re not unique in terms of the amounts of clear-up rates. All jurisdictions are making greater efforts, evidenced by this government. You can ask the question in the appropriation debate, as you full know, about the efforts that go into resourcing the police more and more in their efforts, and that’s a separate issue. In terms of the whole area of law and order, there are a multitude of policies and programs and resources that are applied, in order to provide and create a safer Northern Territory and in order to create an environment whereby Territorians feel safe in their homes and feel safe as they go about their business
I said last week in this House that this is a central focus under the general heading of lifestyle that this government will continue to pursue. But the issue of mandatory sentencing is very simple, and that is that politicians write the Criminal Code. The judiciary does not write the criminal code, politicians write it. They write it in this parliament the same as they write other legislation. In the Criminal Code there are maximum sentences applied. The only difference in the Northern Territory is that we write a minimum sentence for certain aspects of crime, and we write a minimum sentence in order to guide the judiciary and to say that this is the gravity that the community places on these particular types of crimes.
You can run all the arguments in the world. You can try and sidetrack the issue as much as you like, but the simple message of mandatory sentencing to the criminal and to the judiciary is this: if a person engages in that sort of behaviour, they will go to jail. It is a simple message and it’s the message that we will continue to promote and maintain.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, within that question is a criticism of the police, and that is certainly something that I wouldn’t be running out here too often. The opposition tries to run a number issues to create an argument. The issue is very simple - punish the guilty. That’s what mandatory sentencing is all about. If you break into someone’s house and you get convicted in the court, you’re going to jail. That is what mandatory sentencing is all about. The rationale behind mandatory sentencing is to express the community’s displeasure as to the gravity of the crime. That’s what it’s all about and that’s a relevant aspect of sentencing.
With regards to the clear-up rate in the Northern Territory, and in other states of Australia I might add, we’re not unique in terms of the amounts of clear-up rates. All jurisdictions are making greater efforts, evidenced by this government. You can ask the question in the appropriation debate, as you full know, about the efforts that go into resourcing the police more and more in their efforts, and that’s a separate issue. In terms of the whole area of law and order, there are a multitude of policies and programs and resources that are applied, in order to provide and create a safer Northern Territory and in order to create an environment whereby Territorians feel safe in their homes and feel safe as they go about their business
I said last week in this House that this is a central focus under the general heading of lifestyle that this government will continue to pursue. But the issue of mandatory sentencing is very simple, and that is that politicians write the Criminal Code. The judiciary does not write the criminal code, politicians write it. They write it in this parliament the same as they write other legislation. In the Criminal Code there are maximum sentences applied. The only difference in the Northern Territory is that we write a minimum sentence for certain aspects of crime, and we write a minimum sentence in order to guide the judiciary and to say that this is the gravity that the community places on these particular types of crimes.
You can run all the arguments in the world. You can try and sidetrack the issue as much as you like, but the simple message of mandatory sentencing to the criminal and to the judiciary is this: if a person engages in that sort of behaviour, they will go to jail. It is a simple message and it’s the message that we will continue to promote and maintain.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016