Page 125 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Similarly, this provision would apply to the offence of indecent exposure, and to section 546C, noise abatement directions. This does not mean that a police officer could come along and say, "You are too noisy; I will give you a $100 on-the-spot fine". Failure to respond to a police direction to lower the noise level could be dealt with in the same two ways. Finally, under section 546E of the Crimes Act, public mischief can bring a fine of $2,000 or imprisonment for 12 months. Basically, it has to do with interfering with the responsible workings of any member of the emergency forces such as an ambulance officer, fire officer, bushfire council officer or any officer in an emergency service. Once again, on many occasions a police officer may see the need to write an on-the-spot fine or he may think that the matter is more serious - perhaps he is dealing with a recidivist - and would prefer to charge that person.

The Bill I have presented is really in two main parts, apart from the introductory section. Clause 4 provides for the offence notices, which make it very clear that there will be no record. Proposed new paragraph 575(4)(c) reads:

If the prescribed penalty is paid in accordance with the offence notice -

... ... ...

That is in the same mould as the expiation notice this Assembly passed with regard to marijuana. It is important that we have that ability to make sure that somebody is still presumed innocent, instead of paying a fine and then being presumed to have been guilty. There is another side advantage to this method, and that is that the Magistrates Court may well be freed up from the Monday morning rush of charges. The result may well be that the Magistrates Court can deal with more serious matters, rather than having to deal with a range of general public misbehaviours.

The revenue implications I have been asked about by a number of people. I think they probably are not very significant. The figure I have chosen is $100 when the offences are either $1,000 or $2,000 offences. The magistrate could well impose a penalty greater than that provided for in the expiation notice, but I think that is appropriate. We are really talking about a situation where the police, when they consider a matter to be serious, can refer it back to the magistrate. The person who has been given the fine can also refer it back to the magistrate if he feels that he has been unjustly dealt with.

I must say that I have been encouraged by the in-principle support from both Labor and Liberal for this concept. Members may wish to make some minor modifications or to discuss other offences that should be included, or perhaps one or two of the ones I have identified that are considered inappropriate. I am quite happy to discuss that with members and, hopefully, get tripartisan support for this Bill to give our police force more flexibility in the way they deal with public misbehaviour. I commend the Bill to the house.

Debate (on motion by Ms Follett) adjourned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .