Page 5694 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 219
MR JENSEN (4.32): I move:
Page 100, line 16, omit "$200", substitute "$2,000".
What we are seeking to do here is increase the penalty from $200 to $2,000. A penalty of $200 for a false statement to the Executive, the Minister, a public servant or an agent is, we believe, far too low. The minimum penalty, we are suggesting, should be $2,000, and that is why we have moved this amendment.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.33): This is the first time that the question of penalties has come up. I would seek some advice from the Attorney-General on the matter of whether the penalties proposed here are consistent with those imposed in other cases. We come to additional penalties later on, when we get down to the schedules - and I notice that Mr Jensen has raised the question of whether they are appropriate in a number of cases. In respect of them, I have the same questions in my mind, in terms of consistency. Perhaps the Attorney will give us some guidance as to whether the penalties for the offence of making a false or misleading statement under other Acts are consistent with what is proposed here.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.34): I am advised that, in the drafting of this legislation, both in the period of the Alliance Government and in the period of the Labor Government, these issues of penalties have been cleared with the justice area of the Attorney-General's Department. This section tries to advise all departments, when legislation is being drafted, on penalty provisions to try to have some consistency across the whole range of ACT legislation. So, this penalty, like all the penalties - and I notice that there are a number of amendments by Mr Jensen in relation to numbers going up or down - has been picked on the basis of consistency with other Acts. So, to have a tenfold increase in this particular clause would seem to the Government to be pointless.
MR COLLAERY (4.34): I agree with the Attorney that it is consistent. But, as Mr Kaine well knows, it is consistent with outdated other laws in the law package that we have inherited. The fact is that the statutory declarations legislation and all those other provisions and laws have yet to be re-penalised in that process that we know is going to take place some time down the track. So, I just wanted to add that. The question whether $200 is appropriate in this day and age for the range of offences of this type has not been addressed, but it probably is consistent with what else is on the statute book.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .