Mr EDE - 1995-11-22
The Chief Minister stated to the Northern Territory Police Association's 1995 annual conference:
You will not find me a police minister who engages in the rhetoric of law and order. Unless the outcomes are
real and capable of being met, then I am not interested in going down the path.
Wonderful sentiments! Wasn't it the Chief Minister who called for the reintroduction of public drunkenness as a criminal offence? Does he still stand by that? Wasn't he party to the election
Page 1016
policy promising compulsory sentences of 28 days imprisonment for repeat offenders, including juveniles, for crimes such as unlawful entry, unlawfully being on premises, stealing a motor vehicle, interfering with a motor vehicle, shoplifting and criminal damage? Does he stand by that policy? Wasn't it he who said he would make it a criminal offence to burn flags, including the flags of foreign powers? Does he still stand by that? Wasn't it he who said he wanted druggies to get out of the Territory at the same time as he issued an options paper canvassing on-the-spot fines for the possession of opium, mescalin and anabolic steroids? Finally, if the Chief Minister sincerely believes all this is not engaging in law and order rhetoric, would he accept that the term `windbag' is more appropriate?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, one wonders if members opposite are choreographed to chuckle simultaneously. They have failed miserably again, as they have failed for 21 years, in trying to represent the interests of Territorians. What really upsets the Leader of the Opposition is that my government has consulted widely in the community on very important issues.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: You may chuckle, but the discussion paper which canvassed the on-the-spot fines concept drew responses from a range of people, including Year 12 classes, the NT Police Association and officers in charge of police stations who thanked me for asking for their views and taking them into account. An almost overwhelming number of submissions were received from Territorians who wanted to have their say about the administration of justice.
During these sittings, a scheme will be introduced whereby 40 offences, which came formerly before the courts automatically, will be dealt with by way of on-the-spot fines. That is an important initiative. It will free up police to deal with offences at the other end of the scale.
Had the Leader of the Opposition bothered to read the police association's comments, he would have noted that it supports the government moving towards on-the-spot fines. The Leader of the Opposition likes to stand up and say that the discussion paper listed various other major offences. That is true, but he cannot escape the fact that it was a discussion paper. There was no attempt to restrict input from the public. One can only speculate on the sort of government people would have from members opposite. It would be prescriptive, saying that certain matters only could be discussed and other matters could not be discussed. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Let us move on.
Mr Ede: So election policies are discussion papers?
Page 1017
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri retains the title of the rudest member in this Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. Why don't you do me the courtesy of listening to the answer?
Mr Bailey: Because you are not answering it.
Mr STONE: Moving on to some of the other outrageous assertions that the Leader of the Opposition made, he glossed over the truth-in-sentencing legislation that was introduced and passed in this Chamber. That legislation was not endorsed enthusiastically by the Labor Party in the Territory ...
Mr Ede: What? What about your ...
Mr STONE: Every time the government moves to embrace a strategy on the law-and-order front, we are hit by members of the ALP who have a soft underbelly when it comes to these issues. It reaches the point where the Australian Labor Party in the Territory is more concerned with the rights of offenders than it is with the rights of victims. We see that repeatedly. Members opposite do not have the backbone to stand up and support legislation that guarantees, in effect, that Territorians will be safe in their homes. One of the largest chinks in the armour of the Labor Party in the Territory is that it is soft on law and order issues. It is soft on crime. In the time that I have been Chief Minister, I have moved to implement a stronger regime of law and order as it applies to the criminal justice system than has been the case in recent history. It really is time that the Leader of the Opposition and his cronies in the Labor Party were prepared to stand up for the victims of crime rather than some of these namby-pamby policies that they try to import from the southern states.
Page 1018
You will not find me a police minister who engages in the rhetoric of law and order. Unless the outcomes are
real and capable of being met, then I am not interested in going down the path.
Wonderful sentiments! Wasn't it the Chief Minister who called for the reintroduction of public drunkenness as a criminal offence? Does he still stand by that? Wasn't he party to the election
Page 1016
policy promising compulsory sentences of 28 days imprisonment for repeat offenders, including juveniles, for crimes such as unlawful entry, unlawfully being on premises, stealing a motor vehicle, interfering with a motor vehicle, shoplifting and criminal damage? Does he stand by that policy? Wasn't it he who said he would make it a criminal offence to burn flags, including the flags of foreign powers? Does he still stand by that? Wasn't it he who said he wanted druggies to get out of the Territory at the same time as he issued an options paper canvassing on-the-spot fines for the possession of opium, mescalin and anabolic steroids? Finally, if the Chief Minister sincerely believes all this is not engaging in law and order rhetoric, would he accept that the term `windbag' is more appropriate?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, one wonders if members opposite are choreographed to chuckle simultaneously. They have failed miserably again, as they have failed for 21 years, in trying to represent the interests of Territorians. What really upsets the Leader of the Opposition is that my government has consulted widely in the community on very important issues.
Members interjecting.
Mr STONE: You may chuckle, but the discussion paper which canvassed the on-the-spot fines concept drew responses from a range of people, including Year 12 classes, the NT Police Association and officers in charge of police stations who thanked me for asking for their views and taking them into account. An almost overwhelming number of submissions were received from Territorians who wanted to have their say about the administration of justice.
During these sittings, a scheme will be introduced whereby 40 offences, which came formerly before the courts automatically, will be dealt with by way of on-the-spot fines. That is an important initiative. It will free up police to deal with offences at the other end of the scale.
Had the Leader of the Opposition bothered to read the police association's comments, he would have noted that it supports the government moving towards on-the-spot fines. The Leader of the Opposition likes to stand up and say that the discussion paper listed various other major offences. That is true, but he cannot escape the fact that it was a discussion paper. There was no attempt to restrict input from the public. One can only speculate on the sort of government people would have from members opposite. It would be prescriptive, saying that certain matters only could be discussed and other matters could not be discussed. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Let us move on.
Mr Ede: So election policies are discussion papers?
Page 1017
Mr STONE: The member for Wanguri retains the title of the rudest member in this Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. Why don't you do me the courtesy of listening to the answer?
Mr Bailey: Because you are not answering it.
Mr STONE: Moving on to some of the other outrageous assertions that the Leader of the Opposition made, he glossed over the truth-in-sentencing legislation that was introduced and passed in this Chamber. That legislation was not endorsed enthusiastically by the Labor Party in the Territory ...
Mr Ede: What? What about your ...
Mr STONE: Every time the government moves to embrace a strategy on the law-and-order front, we are hit by members of the ALP who have a soft underbelly when it comes to these issues. It reaches the point where the Australian Labor Party in the Territory is more concerned with the rights of offenders than it is with the rights of victims. We see that repeatedly. Members opposite do not have the backbone to stand up and support legislation that guarantees, in effect, that Territorians will be safe in their homes. One of the largest chinks in the armour of the Labor Party in the Territory is that it is soft on law and order issues. It is soft on crime. In the time that I have been Chief Minister, I have moved to implement a stronger regime of law and order as it applies to the criminal justice system than has been the case in recent history. It really is time that the Leader of the Opposition and his cronies in the Labor Party were prepared to stand up for the victims of crime rather than some of these namby-pamby policies that they try to import from the southern states.
Page 1018
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016