Page 4301 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You do need some deterrence. You need some order. You need some sanctions so that people can live in a reasonably ordered society, and the system actually works. Unfortunately, at times, it does not work, through being excessively lenient and having woolly-headed ideas about everyone being pure and innocent and driven by the most wonderful thoughts. Unfortunately, that simply is not the case.
Really, I think we have to be a little fair dinkum here. I would not have brought this particular amendment to the house were it not of great concern to the professionals in the area, and when they say that something like this should happen, I listen. The professionals in legal aid are duty solicitors who attend court on behalf of these kids. They hear all sorts of allegations against people in authority. These people represent kids and do a wonderful job.
In my experience in terms of most defendants who go to that office, I think the community is well served by the Legal Aid Office. Defendants are well served. The Legal Aid Office certainly does not deal with the defendants who can afford to pay private solicitors; they often deal with the ones who cannot. When these professionals say that there are problems with this Act, I certainly listen. When the court professionals who staff the Children's Court say that something like this should happen, I listen.
Really, when one has a look at this Act, some of the objections are quite nonsensical. You are not going to get a Jamie Partlic type of situation here because, firstly, very few children, if you pass this - it seems that most of you will not - will not pay their fine. They would not have been fined in the first place, in accordance with section 52, if they did not have the ability to pay it. If they do not pay and the police turn up with a warrant, they will pay. That has happened in the past; that will happen again. So, very few kids will be actually going into an institution like Quamby.
You may get some kids who will go in because they have been committed to an institution for a period for certain offences - let us say, a 12-month committal for breaking into 50 houses or something, and other offences which come into the time, such as a fine of $200 for a traffic matter or $50 for another matter. They would be given days in default. Yes, they will be in an institution. They will work that out in an institution concurrently with their substantive sentence. That certainly is common and was common in the past. I saw that happen before 1986 in Canberra and it has happened on a number of occasions in the Children's Court. But very rarely will you see an instance of a child or young person not paying a fine when a warrant is issued and payment is enforced.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .