Like most Territorians, I was annoyed at the prospect of further federal intervention with Territory legislation, this time with respect to mandatory sentencing, but when I heard the Labor Senator for the Territory supporting this attack on Territory independence, I was really annoyed. Does the Chief Minister have any comment on Territorians’ attitudes to the activities of Senators Brown and Crossin?

ANSWER

Mr Speaker, Territorians might be interested to see how childish the opposition are acting in this Chamber this morning. It’s a pity; it’s one of those times when one sometimes wishes we had television in here. My 10-year old boy would act more responsibly than you lot sitting over there.

I thank the member for Nelson for his question. In terms of Senator Bob Brown, one could generally treat him as an irrelevance, which I have done, and I made the point when I debated with him on air that, if you’re a Senator from Tasmania and your name’s not Harradine you’ve got to find some reason to get your name up in lights, and Senator Bob Brown is running on the issue of mandatory sentencing. Generally people would treat him as an irrelevance.

I’m pleased that Senator Trish Crossin is in the Chamber this morning, because she can get some direct feedback. What does become a problem for Territorians is when we have a Senator from the Northern Territory, in a state’s House, not representing Territorians first. Bob Collins always did, no matter that, at times, his personal feelings were different, but he always represented the right of Territorians to make their own laws.

In the case of Senator Trish Crossin, she has flagged that she may support Senator Bob Brown in his moves to overturn mandatory sentencing. I can tell you what this government is going to do with mandatory sentencing - it will be introduced in the Chamber on Thursday. We extend mandatory sentencing to include grievous assault, criminal assault. We extend mandatory sentencing to include sexual offences. We provide exceptional circumstances as an escape or a single trivial offence as an escape in the case of an individual on their first charge who has made offer of restitution and when, in the opinion of the magistrate, the offence is trivial, and the exceptional circumstances exist. We’ve also introduced ...

Mr Bailey: So with all those conditions, you don’t know ...

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Bailey interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BURKE: ... diversionary conferencing for juveniles to escape their second conviction, if they successfully complete the diversionary conferencing program. Those are the only changes to mandatory sentencing which this government will entertain, and our focus is very much on maintaining mandatory sentencing.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that in terms of her support or otherwise …

Mr Ah Kit: Well, when are we going to see it?

Mr BURKE: I’ll just pick up the member for Arnhem’s comment. The opposition is calling for detail on the mandatory sentencing laws that will be coming through. One of the reasons that detail is not provided at the moment is their shadow Attorney-General refuses to apologise to a public servant who sat in this Chamber and suffered abuse from him in the last session of parliament, and the public servant …

Ms Martin: You’re a dill!

Mr Stirling: You’re a dill!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would ask you to withdraw that - both of you.

Mr STIRLING: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms MARTIN: I withdraw.

Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, what they say to me is irrelevant. What I want is an apology to the public servant who can’t speak for himself. I’ve said to the Leader of the Opposition to get her shadow Attorney-General to apologise to this public servant, and until he does so he will not get briefings from public servants of this government. A simply request. Apologise - get the briefings. But if he wants to be childish about it and not apologise, then the whole of the opposition can sit there and wait till it gets this information in the normal course of time. Now, with regards to…

Mr Bailey interjecting.

Mr HATTON: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I cannot hear what the Chief Minister says because of the continuous babble from the member for Wanguri.

Mr SPEAKER: I was about to pull the member for Wanguri up and place him on a warning. He’s now on a warning. I remind him that he may find himself outside for at least an hour if he continues to interject in the way he’s been doing.

Mr BURKE: As I was saying, I noticed yesterday on television the Leader of the Opposition said that she would wait to see what these changes were before she gave her support or otherwise. Now, this is real deception. Why don’t you just simply say to Territorians that if you had a chance to be in you would scrap mandatory sentencing? That’s what your Labor Senator wants and that’s what the ALP in the Northern Territory wants. This is rot that they might support or otherwise these changes. The simple message for Territorians is that if they were in government they would get rid of mandatory sentencing and their position is one of support for criminals. This government’s position is support for the victims of crime. Rarely does …

Mr Bailey interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Wanguri that he’s treading on very shaky ground.

Mr BURKE: Rarely does the Chief Minister or any of the ministers get such direct feedback as I got after the current affair program with Senator Bob Brown. There’s a simple message for Senator Trish Crossin and the members of the Opposition …

Mr AH KIT: A point of order, Mr Speaker! It is hypocritical of the Chief Minister to attack the member for Nhulunbuy in respect of a public servant while he takes an opportunity to attack our Senator from the Northern Territory. He has …

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I failed to hear the point of order from the Minister for Primary Industries because you were speaking over one another.

Mr PALMER: My point of order was that the honourable member opposite accused the Chief Minister of being a hypocrite and he can’t do that other than by way of substantive motion. I would ask it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: I regard the word as having been used here fairly regularly in the past and it’s become acceptable.

Mr PALMER: That’s not to say I haven’t been offended by it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you may well be offended. There is no point of order.

Mr BURKE: With regards to my comments about Senator Trish Crossin, there is a difference between criticism and education. I’m giving her the opportunity now to a little bit of education because I have never received such a flood …

Ms Martin: Wring your hands – come on.

Mr BURKE: I’ll wring my hands if you get another hair style. I’ll tell you this. What I saw on television last night needs a lot of improvement.

Ms Martin interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There’s just far too much mumble on the opposition benches. I’m finding it very difficult to hear what the Chief Minister has to say. I would appreciate reasonable silence

Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, I believe I’m getting to them. I’m quite proud of that. In terms of the debate with Senator Bob Brown, my office has been flooded with phone calls and faxes. Flooded, and they’re still coming in. These are some of the comments that I’ve received.

I believe your approach and belief in the community of their concerns that criminals pay a price for committing crimes is valid and real. You are 100% correct about the mood of the average Australian being sick to death of having their property abused and stolen. The only people who have to worry about zero tolerance and/or mandatory sentencing or any other law are those who break the law.

There is an anger in the community against such so called do-gooders who see themselves as having superior intelligence and grasp of issues that enables only them to make the laws in this country.