Page 1050 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Jensen says that a lot of other people have made the suggestion too, but - - -
Mr Jensen: It was not me, Mr Connolly, thank you.
MR CONNOLLY: Was it Mr Kaine? I am sorry. I was not looking in that direction when I heard the muttering. A lot of other people have made this suggestion; but it seems that, as so often is the case, it is up to the Opposition to act on these things rather than simply espouse good ideas. Mr Speaker, the problem was brought home to the Opposition when we were looking at some machinery amendments to, I think, the Truck Act earlier this year, moved by the Government - an Act not dealing with motor vehicles but dealing with a fairly arcane but nonetheless important area of consumer protection.
It became apparent when we looked at that Act that this was typical of many Acts on the statute book here, as in other places, which have not been amended in many, many years. The penalty provisions which stood in that Act at $20 could be traced back to the penalty provisions as they were in place prior to February 1966, that is 10 pounds, and were originally set when 10 pounds was a substantial penalty. But over time, as inflation occurs, it is very easy for a penalty which was at one time appropriate to become a mere trifle - almost a licence fee to commit an offence.
Making the penalty fit the crime is something that we would all agree is a desirable outcome; but making the penalty fit the crime is a matter on which, on the quantum of penalty, no doubt opinions would differ across the chamber. Mr Stefaniak might take a different view from me, for example, on that issue but I am sure that there would be general agreement that in the area of pecuniary penalties, of fines, it is important that the penalty keep up to date.
The course that has been adopted - this is certainly not a novel suggestion of the ACT Labor Opposition - in some of the States and in some areas of the Commonwealth with new Acts, as they are being introduced, is for penalties to be expressed in penalty units. There is a single point, and most commonly, as we are suggesting, that point is found in the Interpretation Act, where a penalty unit is equated to a figure. We have here taken, as is commonly the case, that one penalty unit shall equal $100, or one portion of a penalty unit. So for a very minor offence under, say, a litter Act or what have you, or a traffic parking offence, it may be that it would be 1.5 of a penalty unit or 0.3 of a penalty unit or 0.4 of a penalty unit. You can have portions of a penalty unit.
At the moment we are proposing that the penalty unit would be $100 and as we introduce legislation, or if this Bill is supported by the Government as government legislation is introduced, the penalties will be expressed in penalty units. In 18 months' or two years' time it might be appropriate to amend section 33 of the Interpretation Act
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .