Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| This is an important bill, though any attempt to explaining this to members opposite will require an extraordinary effort on the part of opposition. The capacity to hear and understand beyond spin appears to elude this government. When we went to the early election that was called on supposed grounds, the good people of the Northern Territory assessed those grounds and found those grounds wanting. It was a spurious call. The community was very concerned, and remains very concerned, about the need to shift the balance from offender to victim to readdress the balance. Those good folk out there in our community have weighed very carefully the attitude and the actions of this Labor government. In running a campaign, if your objective is solely and predominantly to hold on to power, as we have seen, a government, this government, will do whatever it takes to achieve that objective. And that comes to the issue of the messages that are delivered. The impression that has been established in the minds of the community, but fortunately to the good judgement of the community, they have found the message wanting in terms of credibility and believability, is that they know that there is a need for a firm response, a clear response, to the issue of violent assaults in our community. They are on the rise, and the community is desperate for leadership to be exercised to send the strongest possible message to those that have the capacity to inflict violence on other members of our community. With that in mind, and speaking in a political context, government recognised that and were able to, with their significant resources, a lot of those not ethical resources, able to draw upon the resources of government and to paint a picture for the purposes of holding on to power, that being, ‘we recognise your problem, community, we recognise that there needs to be a strong stance taken against those who visit violence upon citizens, and make no mistake, we are going to get tough’, so said the glossy brochures and messages that went out publicly. Sadly, the substance of that was not matched by the spin. Fortunately, the community have made that judgment, they have seen the actions, and have assessed the attitude of this government, which is more inclined to side with the offender than to stand robustly alongside the victim and stand up for what is right. This bill is an attempt to assist government to move closer to a place of credibility and restore trust in the community of government. To say that you are going to get tough and to use words such as ‘actual prison time’, in substance, does not effect the changes that are required. There needs to be an absolutely clear, beyond reasonable doubt, or any doubt, there will be a strong message sent to those who commit violent offences. The fine point here, which may elude members opposite, is that behind the rhetoric and the spin, there is still the capacity for a sentence to be imposed that is until the rising of the court. At that point we differ. We want to be absolutely clear about that and make sure that we make that beyond any possibility. In the interests of standing up for what is right, that is: sending a strong message to those in our community who visit violence upon other citizens. The bill amends the Sentencing Act, and sets out specific, minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offences and all second and subsequent offences. The bill removes the ability for suspension of any of the minimum sentence and suspension of sentence for second and subsequent offences within 10 years of conviction of a previous violent offence. The current arrangements provide for jail time, however, this may simply be to the rising of the court. That is the concern. That is what is not revealed in any of the advertisements or the public statements of this government - to their shame. It does not go beyond the capacity of this government, in the interests of political manoeuvring and the acquisition of power, to reach out and lodge deliberately an impression which is not true. There needs to be a change. There needs to be beyond the capacity for a sentence to be imposed to the rising of the court. For those who have suffered violence and those who want to see standards defended and protected, they need to know there is a strong and clear response and consequence. That is what they expect. If you want to restore law and order, you need to have a strong position like this. Anything less than that creates confusion and resulting disorder within the community. The amendments will allow the court to decide the outcomes for first time offenders, except where serious harm is caused to the victim. Much was made of this during the campaign: that being, perhaps it was a first time offence in Mitchell Street, where a person glassed another person in the front bar and inflicted serious harm - as it did - there should be no doubt, so the community can see there is an absolutely clear response, and in that case, there would be six months as the minimum, no possibility of wriggle room. The purpose of this is to defend a principle, not to favour in any way the offender, because the moment we move our attitude towards the offender, we have lost our connection with the levers which are necessary to strengthen the notion of consequence for action, and developing a defence within our community. So that there is some security developed within the community, there needs to be a minimum sentence. It could be more than that, but that is the minimum. At this point, it is possible for it to be imposed ‘until the rising of the court’. That is possible, and I think the community needs better than that. That is what this amendment provides for and I will outline how this clarity can be established if this bill were supported. The support for this bill will salvage some credibility for government which was able to say one thing and in fact did something quite different. It also goes to a Chief Minister saying: ‘I have heard the community and I will now respond to what I have heard’. Here is another opportunity. Principally, there is a new section called Section 78BA and only applies to adults and it is as follows. It sets out who the act will apply to. It sets out that the court must record a conviction and impose a term of imprisonment. It prevents the court from suspending any part of the sentence for an offender who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence within the preceding 10 years - it makes it clear. It allows the court to suspend the sentence in part but not in part in other cases. It sets out the various minimum periods of imprisonment. It excludes the possibility of ‘until the rising of the court’. That is the point; the point that this government did not take the time to communicate. If they were truly open, honest and transparent, as they plainly are not, they would have made that clear. They did not in the interests of establishing an impression for the purposes of holding onto power. And they are only holding on by the narrowest of margins. That is not something for us to gloat upon, but it is to reflect on the community that expects more. They expect honesty when you are dealing with matters of genuine concern to our community. They expressed that concern quite plainly and a Chief Minister said quite clearly he was now listening. Well, what else was he to say? The community was judging that Chief Minister when he said that and I trust the community were caused to check to see whether they could listen and respond to what the Chief Minister had to say at that time. How would they judge that? By the actions that followed. And what actions followed? Little. There were opportunities in the first session of parliament to act on that by bringing forward these changes, but they failed to take that opportunity, failed to follow through. There is a vast difference between saying something and saying something only, or saying something and then acting. People are beyond the point. You know that cynicism is increasing in the community with regard to those who hold office, and that cynicism is fed by those who say things but do not act. The community has had enough and they are calling out for real leadership. They have had their opportunity and they have failed. This Chief Minister has failed. Making a statement such as that in the face of the community after leading them to an early election and not following through is appalling. It will visit upon this government until the day we go to the polls again. So, there are various minimum periods of imprisonment. For the second violent offence – serious harm 12 months - full stop. Minimum for adult first violence offence – serious harm six months. That was an impression that was gained but not carried through the substance of actions of this government in this Chamber. Adult second violent offence – (a) and (b) do not apply and aggravated circumstances - three months. And so on, Madam Speaker. The principle of this is to actually deliver what you have said you would deliver. This provides the opportunity for this government to cast those blights upon their record in the face of this community, stand up for those victims, and to do something that reinforces those basic principles of bringing down a strong and clear response to those who visit violence upon citizens. Put it beyond doubt so that we can restore our confidence in the decisions that people make on their behalf, restore their confidence in those who are charged with the responsibility of leadership, particularly in the primary issue of establishing a sense of order within our community and that only comes through respect for law, so that games are not played. There is a minimum sentence. I urge honourable members, in the spirit of those utterances which were made in the face of the community, to support this amendment so that there is a true strengthening of law and ensuing social order within our community by good and honest leadership so that we speak plainly and act upon what we say. Madam Speaker, I also table the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill. Debate adjourned. |