Mr BAILEY - 1996-10-09
On radio this morning the Attorney-General stated:
The fact that the burden of proof basically is that you have to prove that the parents failed to exercise
reasonable supervision and control of the juvenile, and essentially, with that burden of proof, there is not
only large administrative problems but various defences that parents can use ... I think that perhaps we
should start from a baseline assumption that parents are liable, you know, rather than the courts having to
prove they are liable in some way, they are liable by the mere fact that they are parents.
Following yesterday's lack of support for Territory parents with regard to child care, is he seeking now to shift a further burden to parents of guilt by association, without the normal onus of proof expected within our society, and to shift the high cost of proof of innocence to parents rather than accepting that people are innocent until proven guilty?
Mr Hatton: Parents have no responsibility for their kids - is that what you are saying?
Mr BAILEY: Parents are guilty until they can take on the high cost of proof of innocence. It costs a great deal to prove that they are guilty.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri has already asked his question. He should be on his feet if he wishes to ...
Mr BAILEY: I am replying to an interjection, Mr Speaker.
Page 1646
Mr SPEAKER: You did not need to reply to the interjection.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, all I can say is that the member is drawing one hell of a long bow. Is he suggesting ...
Mr Bailey: They were your words, on radio this morning.
Mr BURKE: Are you suggesting that child care contributes to juvenile crime?
Mr Bailey: No, you dumped on Territory parents yesterday by not supporting child care. Today, you are saying they are to be deemed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Therefore, the member for Wanguri is suggesting that parents have no liability for juvenile crime.
Mr Bailey: No. You introduce legislation ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat. The member for Wanguri is again trying my patience. You have asked a question. Allow the minister to answer it. If you are dissatisfied, ask a further question later.
Mr BURKE: The first point is that, in terms of mandatory imprisonment and the measures that are being applied, that is not focused on juveniles. It is separated because, in terms of addressing property offences per se, we are not looking only juveniles, but also at adult offenders.
The Juvenile Justice Act has provided, since 1992, for an amount of money - $100 - to be levied against parents to pay for the cost of detention of juveniles. There is also an avenue through the civil court for restitution to be obtained from parents to pay for damage that juveniles may have committed and for which it is clearly seen that some restitution should be applied. At the moment, restitution is applied against adults by the courts. To my mind, it is fairly logical that, where restitution can be gained in matters involving juveniles, someone should pay. The issue then is the point at which parents are liable.
As I said, provision for that to occur is already available in the Juvenile Justice Act. It has been there since 1992. The difficulty lies with the mechanism of applying the provision and the issue there is the level of burden of proof that the court has to apply in terms of establishing liability. To my mind, that is a pretty simple issue. Either one works from a base premise that parents have no liability for their children, or one assumes liability. In assuming liability, we have then to improve the mechanisms that the court can use in terms of cutting down on the various defences and delays that can be applied by the legal eagles once they are involved with these matters.
Page 1647
The other issue we need to address is ...
Ms Martin: If your child has left home, you are liable? You said this morning that 35% have left home. Are these parents ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have been sitting here now for almost 50 minutes and I am interested in the answers that might be given in this Chamber. I raise a point of order under standing orders 44, 51, 52 and 62. Quite frankly, I have had enough of the constant cross-examination back and forth across the Chamber. These are not interjections. I am tired of listening to the attempts of members of the opposition to speak over the top of ministers when they are endeavouring to give an answer which I am sure the people at home are interested to hear and which I am interested to hear as a member of this House. Enough is enough. Question Time is not simply for the benefit ...
Mr Bell: Settle down!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: ... of people in the Chamber. It is for the benefit of people who are listening, including those who have tuned in to a public broadcast. I ask that members opposite keep their comments to interjections and cease this constant tirade of speaking over the top of ministers.
Mr SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will please remain in his seat for the moment. I do not know how often I have to reiterate my concern about the number of interjections. They are not normal interjections. I have indicated that short, sharp interjections, which make sense, are reasonable. However, repeated interjections at length are not in order. That goes for all members. I ask members to abide by standing orders. If they keep their interjections short, sharp and to the point, there will be no problem. If there is continual interjection, members of the public will continue to contact my office, indicating that they are concerned about the level of interjections in Question Time. They are concerned about the standards practised in this House. It is very clear. I advise any member who has not taken the opportunity to listen to a recording of Question Time to do so. They will be as disturbed as some of the listeners.
Mr BAILEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling on a point of order at present. I am simply asking members to abide by the rules.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, if members opposite answered the questions that were asked, we would not interject. You have said that they have no obligation to answer.
Page 1648
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will resume his seat. This is not a time for debate on this issue.
Mr Bailey: You just debated the issue ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made a ruling about interjections and I ask you to abide by that ruling.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell claims that I do not understand the burden of proof. I am not a lawyer. I think that is to my advantage when I deal with these issues. In the criminal court, when you are trying to establish liability, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That is the first problem of seeking restitution in the criminal court. In the civil court, the onus of proof is reversed. There seems to be a better mechanism in the civil court in terms of proving liability of parents because we can work from a basis that liability is assumed. The parent then has to prove that they were not liable. That was the point I was making. That is the mechanism we clearly need to improve upon and that is the area we are working on at the moment.
Page 1649
The fact that the burden of proof basically is that you have to prove that the parents failed to exercise
reasonable supervision and control of the juvenile, and essentially, with that burden of proof, there is not
only large administrative problems but various defences that parents can use ... I think that perhaps we
should start from a baseline assumption that parents are liable, you know, rather than the courts having to
prove they are liable in some way, they are liable by the mere fact that they are parents.
Following yesterday's lack of support for Territory parents with regard to child care, is he seeking now to shift a further burden to parents of guilt by association, without the normal onus of proof expected within our society, and to shift the high cost of proof of innocence to parents rather than accepting that people are innocent until proven guilty?
Mr Hatton: Parents have no responsibility for their kids - is that what you are saying?
Mr BAILEY: Parents are guilty until they can take on the high cost of proof of innocence. It costs a great deal to prove that they are guilty.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri has already asked his question. He should be on his feet if he wishes to ...
Mr BAILEY: I am replying to an interjection, Mr Speaker.
Page 1646
Mr SPEAKER: You did not need to reply to the interjection.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, all I can say is that the member is drawing one hell of a long bow. Is he suggesting ...
Mr Bailey: They were your words, on radio this morning.
Mr BURKE: Are you suggesting that child care contributes to juvenile crime?
Mr Bailey: No, you dumped on Territory parents yesterday by not supporting child care. Today, you are saying they are to be deemed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: Therefore, the member for Wanguri is suggesting that parents have no liability for juvenile crime.
Mr Bailey: No. You introduce legislation ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the minister please resume his seat. The member for Wanguri is again trying my patience. You have asked a question. Allow the minister to answer it. If you are dissatisfied, ask a further question later.
Mr BURKE: The first point is that, in terms of mandatory imprisonment and the measures that are being applied, that is not focused on juveniles. It is separated because, in terms of addressing property offences per se, we are not looking only juveniles, but also at adult offenders.
The Juvenile Justice Act has provided, since 1992, for an amount of money - $100 - to be levied against parents to pay for the cost of detention of juveniles. There is also an avenue through the civil court for restitution to be obtained from parents to pay for damage that juveniles may have committed and for which it is clearly seen that some restitution should be applied. At the moment, restitution is applied against adults by the courts. To my mind, it is fairly logical that, where restitution can be gained in matters involving juveniles, someone should pay. The issue then is the point at which parents are liable.
As I said, provision for that to occur is already available in the Juvenile Justice Act. It has been there since 1992. The difficulty lies with the mechanism of applying the provision and the issue there is the level of burden of proof that the court has to apply in terms of establishing liability. To my mind, that is a pretty simple issue. Either one works from a base premise that parents have no liability for their children, or one assumes liability. In assuming liability, we have then to improve the mechanisms that the court can use in terms of cutting down on the various defences and delays that can be applied by the legal eagles once they are involved with these matters.
Page 1647
The other issue we need to address is ...
Ms Martin: If your child has left home, you are liable? You said this morning that 35% have left home. Are these parents ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: A point of order, Mr Speaker! I have been sitting here now for almost 50 minutes and I am interested in the answers that might be given in this Chamber. I raise a point of order under standing orders 44, 51, 52 and 62. Quite frankly, I have had enough of the constant cross-examination back and forth across the Chamber. These are not interjections. I am tired of listening to the attempts of members of the opposition to speak over the top of ministers when they are endeavouring to give an answer which I am sure the people at home are interested to hear and which I am interested to hear as a member of this House. Enough is enough. Question Time is not simply for the benefit ...
Mr Bell: Settle down!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: ... of people in the Chamber. It is for the benefit of people who are listening, including those who have tuned in to a public broadcast. I ask that members opposite keep their comments to interjections and cease this constant tirade of speaking over the top of ministers.
Mr SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will please remain in his seat for the moment. I do not know how often I have to reiterate my concern about the number of interjections. They are not normal interjections. I have indicated that short, sharp interjections, which make sense, are reasonable. However, repeated interjections at length are not in order. That goes for all members. I ask members to abide by standing orders. If they keep their interjections short, sharp and to the point, there will be no problem. If there is continual interjection, members of the public will continue to contact my office, indicating that they are concerned about the level of interjections in Question Time. They are concerned about the standards practised in this House. It is very clear. I advise any member who has not taken the opportunity to listen to a recording of Question Time to do so. They will be as disturbed as some of the listeners.
Mr BAILEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling on a point of order at present. I am simply asking members to abide by the rules.
Mr BAILEY: Mr Speaker, if members opposite answered the questions that were asked, we would not interject. You have said that they have no obligation to answer.
Page 1648
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wanguri will resume his seat. This is not a time for debate on this issue.
Mr Bailey: You just debated the issue ...
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made a ruling about interjections and I ask you to abide by that ruling.
Mr BURKE: Mr Speaker, the member for MacDonnell claims that I do not understand the burden of proof. I am not a lawyer. I think that is to my advantage when I deal with these issues. In the criminal court, when you are trying to establish liability, it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. That is the first problem of seeking restitution in the criminal court. In the civil court, the onus of proof is reversed. There seems to be a better mechanism in the civil court in terms of proving liability of parents because we can work from a basis that liability is assumed. The parent then has to prove that they were not liable. That was the point I was making. That is the mechanism we clearly need to improve upon and that is the area we are working on at the moment.
Page 1649
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016