Page 3088 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MAGISTRATES COURT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
[COGNATE BILLS:
MAGISTRATES COURT (CIVIL JURISDICTION)
(AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
SMALL CLAIMS (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1991]
Debate resumed from 15 August 1991, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 1991 and the Small Claims (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1991? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 2 they may also address their remarks to orders of the day Nos 3 and 4.
MR STEFANIAK (8.09): These three Bills, which again, I think, had their origins in the time of the Alliance Government, are supported by the Liberal Party. They bring in a number of necessary and indeed timely changes to the Magistrates Court Act, both civil and criminal jurisdiction, and also in relation to the Small Claims Court.
I noted that Mr Connolly, in his presentation speech, stated that these Bills make "amendments in relation to fees and charges under the legislation regulating" that court. One of the highlights of these Bills is that they will allow a fee to be made per charge in a summons issued and require agencies other than the police and the DPP to pay court fees. Indeed, the Director of Public Prosecutions basically takes out nearly all the criminal matters in the courts, and I think it is probably quite proper that it be exempted from paying fees per charge.
However, for other agencies - and indeed there are other government agencies which bring prosecutions - it is proper that those fees be charged. It is also proper, of course, that, upon conviction, the defendant pay those fees. It is also important that a fee be allowed per charge, because we now have legislation which will enable various charges to be part of the one information. At present, in the ACT court system, in laying a charge you have to have one charge per information, rather than have everything on the one document. You end up with a large number of documents - one information per charge - and that is not terribly efficient.
This particular Bill, in conjunction with the Bill which will enable more charges than one to be put on the one document, still provides for a fee to be made per charge, which is, I think, very important in these times of financial difficulties. It is good to see this Government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .