Page 1434 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
overhaul the penalty system because it has to be done in consultation with each of the portfolio agencies and statutory agencies that exist under legislation that contains penalties.
Given the challenges facing the Territory in the jurisprudential area, this is an important issue; but I would suggest that with the nature of some of the Bills that we are bringing through it is not the first priority of a government. I do want to say - and I hope no-one takes this point - that I say that in the context of experience elsewhere. Queensland introduced a penalty unit system, on my advice, in 1985 and I believe, although I have not confirmed it, that they are seriously considering reviewing it and there have even been calls to repeal it in that State. Victoria introduced legislation in 1981, and they are presently reviewing their scheme.
I am looking, Mr Speaker, at a sentencing task force report written by Richard Fox and Arie Freiberg and presented to the Victorian Attorney in September 1989. It is entitled, "Review of Statutory Maximum Penalties in Victoria". At paragraph 96 of the report to the Government is this statement:
One of the claimed advantages for introducing the penalty unit was that it would be easy for the legislature to make across the board adjustments to the level of fines to take account of inflation by a simple amendment to the Penalties and Sentences Act.
This has never been done. If the penalty unit were to be now adjusted for inflation since 1981, its value and practically all fine maxima in the state would almost double to approximately $180.
It goes on and says in the same paragraph:
The amount of $100, when it was originally set, was a relatively arbitrary figure chosen as much for ease of calculation -
this is the penalty unit -
as its connection with any recognised standard such as a percentage of the average weekly wage, or unemployment benefit, or average household disposable income.
It goes on to state:
When reviewing legislation for the purpose of attaching penalty units, the Attorney-General -
the Victorian Attorney-General, that is -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .