Page 3938 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 23 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as parts of this Bill are about raising revenue, I think it is inappropriate that those figures be changed in the way that is suggested.
I shall be very interested to hear Mr Duby explain why it is that they are effectively presenting just the appropriate amount of rise so that they are still effective. It seems to me that in most cases increasing a fine from $40 to $70 or $50 to $80 is not going to have an extra impact in terms of what you are trying to achieve in the Motor Traffic Act. In fact, in reality, this is only a revenue raising measure. As far as that goes, I must say I have some serious difficulties with this particular Bill.
MR CONNOLLY (8.53): Mr Speaker, I rise this evening to make three points in relation to this Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 6) and they are, firstly, a general concern at repetitive Bills amending one substantial Act introduced in the one session of the Assembly; secondly, some observations on the general problem of fines and keeping fines relevant in terms of an appropriate penalty to fit the offence; and, thirdly, some specific concerns about persons unable to pay these new raised fines and who find themselves spending time in prison by way of time in default of payment.
Mr Speaker, the first point is a very serious one. It has been commented upon now twice by the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation. It is extremely wasteful, both of this Assembly's time and of public moneys, to repeatedly introduce single Bills to amend a substantial Act. We are considering this evening Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 6) 1990. We will be considering later this week Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 7) 1990. We have just passed Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 5) 1990 and last week, if my memory serves me correctly, this Assembly passed Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) 1990.
If the Assembly proceeds according to plan, that will mean that in a two-week sitting period we have passed five separate Bills amending the one substantial Act.
Mr Humphries: So what?
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Humphries says, "So what?". It is clearly a substantial cost to revenue, which we went into in the Estimates Committee, to print and prepare a Bill.
Mr Kaine: Oh, rubbish!
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Kaine says, "Oh, rubbish". As I say, this is a serious point - a point unanimously agreed to by this Assembly's Scrutiny of Bills Committee - and I think it is a very sad indictment on Mr Kaine's regard for the parliamentary system that he says "Oh, rubbish" to a unanimous recommendation of a parliamentary committee. Mr Speaker, the normal process in the Federal Parliament and,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .