Page 4300 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We also have to bear in mind the fact that a period in an institution in default of payment of a fine is something that would hardly ever be actioned. Basically, if a child did default, or if a young person did default - as Mr Connolly has conceded, we are not talking about 10-year-olds; we are talking about 16- and 17-year-olds - they will invariably pay up.
I hark back to section 52. That sets out in statutory form, in subsections (2) and (3), what the court has to do before it even makes a fine. Under subsection (2) it has to satisfy itself and have regard to the ability of the child to comply with the order. It has to allow time to pay the fine or to direct that payment be made by instalments. If a child or a young person cannot pay that fine because of changed circumstances, such as losing their job or something else happening, he or she can come back to the court and it can be varied to give them time to pay.
Really, there is no excuse for non-payment of a fine. It is only when a person can pay a fine that the court will impose one to start with. There are ample powers there and ample provision for an order to be varied if a person has trouble. There are things within the Act to enable people who are fair dinkum ample time to pay their fine. If they do not do it, it is simply because they have been completely slack or they have disregard for the system, and that then gets worse if that system cannot be enforced.
I would remind people who have contributed to this debate, Mr Duby and Ms Maher, and perhaps the two members of the Residents Rally and Mr Connolly, that when a warrant is issued and the police come around to execute the warrant for non-payment of a fine, very few people do not make arrangements to pay. That certainly applies with children and, quite often, if the kid has not got the money on him, the parents will pay.
I can think of very few instances where a young person went to an institution simply because they could not pay the fine the court imposed. The court does not impose a fine in the ACT unless the kid has the ability to pay it. That is something we cannot get away from. You must look at section 52. If that were not the case, I would not be bringing this amendment forward, because there would be some force in what people have said.
I have to disagree with Ms Maher who was saying that counselling is a lot more effective. As Mr Collaery quite rightly said, sometimes we are dealing with some pretty tough cookies and basically they just laugh at counselling. There is quite an art form, too, in terms of conning your counsellor. I saw it when I was a defence solicitor. When I was growing up I could see that with some of my mates at school who would get themselves into a bit of trouble. That is something kids do; it is something adults do. It is an unfortunate fact of human nature.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .