Mr BARRETT - 2015-12-03
Can you please update members about the success of the criminal property forfeiture scheme and tell us how many matters with property under restraint are before the Supreme Court as part of the Country Liberal government’s approach to being tough on crime, as opposed to the marshmallows opposite?
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 33; with all due respect, during Question Time we have put up with comments from the member for Blain. We may review the audio afterwards, but we do not need that commentary and I find it offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
Standing Order 20 relates to no interruption to debate. I find it extraordinary that when the minister is answering a question I cannot hear his answer because of the noise from the government benches. I want to hear the answer from the minister. If you could be quiet, opposition and government benches, so everyone can hear the answer from the relevant ministers.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the members opposite have a long history of cuddling up to the villains in our community and saying they are victims. This government has never taken that approach. We treat people who commit crimes in our community, people who sell drugs especially, as people who are worth going after. I have had the surprising job of fighting in the High Court of this country, in the case of Emmerson, to protect our property forfeiture legislation. We successfully protected it.
It seems every time the friends of the ALP dislike something this government does, we have to appear in the High Court to defend it. We defended the Emmerson case successfully and we have stridently gone after unexplained wealth and property forfeiture because, unlike the former government, which managed to get a couple of hundred grand, we now have six matters under restraint before the Supreme Court. The total value of that property is $4.2m. This is from the people who would sell ice in our community, who we hope to catch at our borders. We finally can because legislation was passed in this House, despite the best efforts of the ALP and the Leader of the Opposition to make sure the legislation was stalled as long as possible. Of that $4.2m, $2.25m is classified as unexplained wealth. This includes four residential properties and one commercial property. The government is determined to use all …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. I thank the previous Labor government for bringing the law in.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Sit down.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a good example. Yes, they brought it in and then did not use it. We used it. We starting using it to capture millions of dollars and we had to defend it against the Leader of the Opposition’s friends.
We are determined to use all legal means to eradicate criminal behaviour in the Northern Territory. Whilst these six matters are still before the Supreme Court it would be inappropriate of me to comment on them in any detail. However, this government is not soft on crime. We do not make excuses for the shortcomings of the former Labor government and we will not say these drug dealers in our community need therapy.
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 33; with all due respect, during Question Time we have put up with comments from the member for Blain. We may review the audio afterwards, but we do not need that commentary and I find it offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
Standing Order 20 relates to no interruption to debate. I find it extraordinary that when the minister is answering a question I cannot hear his answer because of the noise from the government benches. I want to hear the answer from the minister. If you could be quiet, opposition and government benches, so everyone can hear the answer from the relevant ministers.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the members opposite have a long history of cuddling up to the villains in our community and saying they are victims. This government has never taken that approach. We treat people who commit crimes in our community, people who sell drugs especially, as people who are worth going after. I have had the surprising job of fighting in the High Court of this country, in the case of Emmerson, to protect our property forfeiture legislation. We successfully protected it.
It seems every time the friends of the ALP dislike something this government does, we have to appear in the High Court to defend it. We defended the Emmerson case successfully and we have stridently gone after unexplained wealth and property forfeiture because, unlike the former government, which managed to get a couple of hundred grand, we now have six matters under restraint before the Supreme Court. The total value of that property is $4.2m. This is from the people who would sell ice in our community, who we hope to catch at our borders. We finally can because legislation was passed in this House, despite the best efforts of the ALP and the Leader of the Opposition to make sure the legislation was stalled as long as possible. Of that $4.2m, $2.25m is classified as unexplained wealth. This includes four residential properties and one commercial property. The government is determined to use all …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 110: relevance. I thank the previous Labor government for bringing the law in.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. Sit down.
Mr ELFERINK: This is a good example. Yes, they brought it in and then did not use it. We used it. We starting using it to capture millions of dollars and we had to defend it against the Leader of the Opposition’s friends.
We are determined to use all legal means to eradicate criminal behaviour in the Northern Territory. Whilst these six matters are still before the Supreme Court it would be inappropriate of me to comment on them in any detail. However, this government is not soft on crime. We do not make excuses for the shortcomings of the former Labor government and we will not say these drug dealers in our community need therapy.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016