Mr KIELY - 2003-02-18
In January this year on the ABC, the Leader of the Opposition said Alan Forscutt would stay in gaol for 20 years minimum before he could even apply to get any consideration for release under the CLP government. What can you tell the House about this claim?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, documents I have brought here today prove that the Denis Burke wanted to free Alan Forscutt after only 10 years in prison …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could you start again and please not refer to people by their proper names.
Dr TOYNE: Documents that I have brought here today to the House, prove that Denis Burke …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you are not allowed to use his name.
Dr TOYNE: … prove that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to free Alan Forscutt after only 10 years in prison. He set up the process to do it and he has been caught out deliberately misleading Territorians about his real intentions and those of the CLP ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That allegation can only be made by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister is answering the question. We shall wait and see.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, but he is making an allegation.
Dr TOYNE: If I can repeat the quote that was embodied in the question: ‘In January this year, the Leader of the Opposition said that, in the case of Forscutt, under the CLP government, he would stay in gaol for 20 years minimum before he could even apply to get some consideration for release’. However, the record shows that the Leader of the Opposition was saying one thing and doing another.
In 1997, the Leader of the Opposition, the then Attorney-General, received a ministerial, which was briefing him on the situation regarding this inmate. He wrote on the bottom of it, in his own handwriting obviously:
I look forward to independent psychiatric advice in November. It may be time to free, on conditions, this man.
‘It may be time to free this man’. That was written in July 1997, just over 10 years after the commission of the killing offence. I will table that ministerial.
The story of this attempted release actually started earlier. In May 1996, an amendment was introduced into the parliament by the CLP to allow the Administrator to release people acquitted on the grounds of insanity, on conditions. When the now Leader of the Opposition put that amendment through parliament he said:
It seemed to me an onerous provision that a person who was in custody for reasons of insanity, and had been in custody for
some time, could not be released under some conditions ... This is an excellent amendment and one which is well overdue.
Then, in April 1997, the now Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Legal Aid Commission regarding an application made by Mr Forscutt for conditional release. In that letter, he advised a committee had been established to implement the amendments allowing release on conditions, and that he advised Mr Forscutt of this. In his letter, it says:
As I informed Mr Forscutt, I have directed the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to review best practice
in other jurisdictions and develop policy protocols and criteria to be adopted to assess suitability for release, and the terms
and conditions of release, under section 382(3) of the Criminal Code.
Yet, in January this year he said:
The CLP position would be this, Forscutt would not be reviewed under 20 years.
I also table the document to the Legal Aid Commission, Mr George Georgiou.
These actions by the Leader of the Opposition in 1997, were taken just over 10 years from the commission of the killing offence and the time at which Mr Forscutt was ultimately incarcerated. By January this year, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that Mr Forscutt would stay in gaol for 20 years minimum before he could even apply to get consideration for release. But today he is saying: ‘… and the fact the peoples’ cases should be reviewed periodically, whether it is six months or not, is something that I would never deny’.
The Leader of the Opposition better come clean on all this. What is your policy on this? Is it that no one gets a look in for 20 years? Is that what it is? Or is it 10 years? Are there going to be reviews or are there not going to be reviews? Are they going to be six months or is it going to be one year? I do not know where you are coming from, but what I do know is that you are not coming clean. The Leader of the Opposition is not being honest with the Territory public. You should get up and be very honest about what you were actually up to in that time, and what the policy is currently.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, documents I have brought here today prove that the Denis Burke wanted to free Alan Forscutt after only 10 years in prison …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could you start again and please not refer to people by their proper names.
Dr TOYNE: Documents that I have brought here today to the House, prove that Denis Burke …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you are not allowed to use his name.
Dr TOYNE: … prove that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to free Alan Forscutt after only 10 years in prison. He set up the process to do it and he has been caught out deliberately misleading Territorians about his real intentions and those of the CLP ...
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That allegation can only be made by way of substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister is answering the question. We shall wait and see.
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, but he is making an allegation.
Dr TOYNE: If I can repeat the quote that was embodied in the question: ‘In January this year, the Leader of the Opposition said that, in the case of Forscutt, under the CLP government, he would stay in gaol for 20 years minimum before he could even apply to get some consideration for release’. However, the record shows that the Leader of the Opposition was saying one thing and doing another.
In 1997, the Leader of the Opposition, the then Attorney-General, received a ministerial, which was briefing him on the situation regarding this inmate. He wrote on the bottom of it, in his own handwriting obviously:
I look forward to independent psychiatric advice in November. It may be time to free, on conditions, this man.
‘It may be time to free this man’. That was written in July 1997, just over 10 years after the commission of the killing offence. I will table that ministerial.
The story of this attempted release actually started earlier. In May 1996, an amendment was introduced into the parliament by the CLP to allow the Administrator to release people acquitted on the grounds of insanity, on conditions. When the now Leader of the Opposition put that amendment through parliament he said:
It seemed to me an onerous provision that a person who was in custody for reasons of insanity, and had been in custody for
some time, could not be released under some conditions ... This is an excellent amendment and one which is well overdue.
Then, in April 1997, the now Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Legal Aid Commission regarding an application made by Mr Forscutt for conditional release. In that letter, he advised a committee had been established to implement the amendments allowing release on conditions, and that he advised Mr Forscutt of this. In his letter, it says:
As I informed Mr Forscutt, I have directed the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to review best practice
in other jurisdictions and develop policy protocols and criteria to be adopted to assess suitability for release, and the terms
and conditions of release, under section 382(3) of the Criminal Code.
Yet, in January this year he said:
The CLP position would be this, Forscutt would not be reviewed under 20 years.
I also table the document to the Legal Aid Commission, Mr George Georgiou.
These actions by the Leader of the Opposition in 1997, were taken just over 10 years from the commission of the killing offence and the time at which Mr Forscutt was ultimately incarcerated. By January this year, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that Mr Forscutt would stay in gaol for 20 years minimum before he could even apply to get consideration for release. But today he is saying: ‘… and the fact the peoples’ cases should be reviewed periodically, whether it is six months or not, is something that I would never deny’.
The Leader of the Opposition better come clean on all this. What is your policy on this? Is it that no one gets a look in for 20 years? Is that what it is? Or is it 10 years? Are there going to be reviews or are there not going to be reviews? Are they going to be six months or is it going to be one year? I do not know where you are coming from, but what I do know is that you are not coming clean. The Leader of the Opposition is not being honest with the Territory public. You should get up and be very honest about what you were actually up to in that time, and what the policy is currently.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016