Parliamentary record : Part I debates (02 October 1990)
Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
DEBATES - Tuesday 2 October 1990 basket. We have seen it happen time and time again. Alternatively, they have a conference or a convention. Mr Ede: Or a review. Mr SETTER: Why not have a review? We have plenty of them today. Mr Ede: Come in sucker! Mr SETTER: No. I do not mind talking about that at all. There are several reviews occurring in relation to the issues that I have discussed. If you want to talk about it, I can tell you the details of that. However, what we are talking about today is amending the Summary Offences Act. Instead of having the gumption to make a decision and to introduce an amendment to the current act, the member for MacDonnell wants to hive it off to a committee. The committee may not report for months and the problem will continue in our community. As 1 indicated earlier, it is a typical socialist ploy. I felt some concern for the member for MacDonnell duri ng his speech because he did not seem to know where he sat within the socialist spectrum. He indicated that, whilst the socialist left approach was to do so-and-so, that did not sit easily with him. I know that he professes to come from the ri ght of the party and that is why he is ostraci sed in the back corner and nobody wants to talk to him most of the time. Mr Ede: What is your excuse? Mr SETTER: I gather that he joined the member for Stuart and became non-aligned. Are you still non-aligned? No comment. He is a misfit. He is non-aligned. This act has been implemented by the police since 1983. I was surprised to learn that they did not have the power to seize the other alcohol in the possession of the alleged offending persons. It appears that the act empowers them to seize only the particular can or bottle of alcohol that was open and being consumed. I was amazed by that because it is obvious that the people concerned would proceed to consume the rest of the alcohol as soon as the police were out of sight. I am very pleased that we' have come to note this concern and have deci ded to amend the act to gi ve it more teeth. I bel i eve that is long overdue. I must say that I have some sympathy with the comments from the member for Sadadeen, because I bel i eve it is someth i ng of a bureaucratic nightmare for the police officer concerned. It is fairly straightforward to issue the receipt, but then he has to take the offending alcohol to the police station where it must remain for 48 hours before it can be reclaimed. Another 14 days are allowed for it to be claimed. I believe the appropriate course of action would be for the alcohol to be seized and a receipt issued. The alcohol could then be taken back to the police station and destroyed. Why set up a bureaucracy or create extra work for somebody to store it, catalogue it, stocktake it and return it to people who most likely will take it to a public place ~nd consume it? It would be much simpler to issue an on-the-spot fine, seize the alcohol and destroy it. This seems to be too bureaucratic. Maybe it keeps people in jobs. 10 696
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.
We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
You are welcome to provide further information or feedback about this item by emailing TerritoryStories@nt.gov.au