Page 3598 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
do not have problems with $5,000 fines for individuals or $20,000 fines for corporations. That is pretty standard practice these days.
But I would point out to the Attorney-General, when we are talking about fines, that the criminal law certainly lags far behind Acts such as these. My colleague Mr Humphries mentioned something to me when we were just talking about fines and considering this Act. I recall an Act passed in about November 1989 by the first Follett Government whereby one could be imprisoned for five years or fined $10,000 for picking a wildflower.
That is quite incredible; yet it is rather amazing that people can break into 30 or 40 houses and still get a bond - no fine or anything like that - and not go anywhere near a gaol. So, I think it is high time that we revised some of the penalties in relation to the criminal law offences. I was rather impressed with the fact that Mr Connolly, in part of his part of the budget, said that the fines for, I think, speeding matters would be brought into line with those of the rest of Australia - and, again, I would commend the New South Wales legislation to him in that regard.
This should not be done only for speeding, though, Mr Connolly. Try that for all traffic matters. In fact, it might be sensible to look at some mandatory fines for minor criminal activities, too, because I think it is important that we make advances in those areas as well, as we are in this area with this uniform legislation, which is supported by the Liberal Party.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (6.04), in reply: The Government is pleased that these Bills will be supported, and I do not want to take up any further time of the house, apart from to reflect on a comment of Mr Jensen's when he reflected, in his weighty speech, that it is a sad thing that in the modern world we have had to regulate weights and measures. It is unfortunate that Mr Stevenson is not present, because I am about to quote from a law that he often harks back to. The Magna Carta of King John of June 1215 said:
Let there be one measure for wine throughout our kingdom, and one measure for ale, and one measure for corn, namely "the London quarter"; and one width for cloths whether dyed, russet or halberget, namely two ells within the selvedges. Let it be the same with weights as with measures.
So, regulation of weights and measures is hardly an aspect of the modern world; it has been a central focus of government concern for generation upon generation, and, indeed, one of the foundations of the law of this country contains that interesting quote. This measure takes the long heritage of weights and measures regulation into the twenty-first century, and I commend the Bills to the house.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .