Page 3794 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Alliance Government, will be seeking to increase penalties further during its own review of that legislation. We look forward with interest to these proposals and expect that the Government will ensure that the penalty for what our amendment Bill describes as "aggravated littering" will increase accordingly.
I understand that the current maximum penalty, of $2,000, is set for people who dump dangerous items, such as old freezers and refrigerators, outside recognised land fills. Tragedies have occurred when young people have become trapped and suffocated when playing in what to them was an exciting hiding place. Hence the reason for the fine. I would suggest that the Government might consider increasing that fine when it reviews its legislation.
The question of penalties brings me to another issue, which was raised while I was doing research for the amendment Bill. It has always been my view that those responsible for littering the countryside, or vandalising public property, should be required to clean up, replant or look after park areas they have defaced or vandalised.
However, it would seem that there are some legal complications with this proposal, because Part XVA of the ACT Crimes Act says that the community service order scheme can be applied only to those over 18, and then only when the punishment for the offence is a gaol sentence. The order is, therefore, issued as an alternative to imprisonment - a proposal, of course, which is fully supported by the Rally. I know that my colleague Mr Collaery, when he was Attorney-General, fought hard to reduce the number of young people being required to enter institutions in New South Wales.
It would therefore be necessary to have the Crimes Act amended, and I have taken the liberty of writing to the Chief Magistrate, Mr Ron Cahill, seeking his comments on this suggestion. In terms of implementing similar orders for juveniles, we were advised that section 47 of the ACT Children's Services Act 1986 allows for magistrates to impose an attendance centre order.
This order may require a child to engage in such work as the Director of Welfare considers necessary and in the best interests of the child. While supervision and possible danger to the young offenders could be a problem, what could be more in the interests of a young person than to be reminded, in a very practical way, of the impact that their actions have on the environment and the safety of others? I am sure that the problems that have been suggested are not insurmountable.
Once we receive the comments on both these proposals and the community service orders, the Rally will seek to have amendments finalised which will further strengthen the "polluter cleans up" ethic that the community is now demanding from those who seem to have an urgent need, for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .