Page 171 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 17 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I might just point out that there is one small downside in that. A number of offenders who appear before our courts and who are convicted make a deliberate decision to spend time in gaol rather than to pay a fine. Even though it might not appear to be a very large sum of money, they make a quite deliberate decision that they will save their money and spend a few days at Her Majesty's pleasure and at Her Majesty's expense. With the new rate of one day for every $100, that option will be rather more attractive.
Mr Berry: If we could get her to pay for it, it would make it a little bit easier.
MR HUMPHRIES: She is paying taxes now. With that adjustment in the rate, it is now possible for a person to pay off that debt much more quickly. So, rather than being confronted with spending eight days in gaol to pay off a $200 fine, it is now the case that you will pay off that fine in two days. I suspect that it will be the case that many more people will take advantage of that opportunity rather than pay the fine. It may not appear to be much to members here, perhaps; I certainly would rather pay $200 than spend two days in gaol. But, if you are unemployed, for example, as a million of our countrymen are, then perhaps spending two days in gaol would be better than blowing a week's dole payment on that payment of a fine. I think that is a matter which perhaps the Minister should factor into his calculations for expenditure on New South Wales prisons.
Another well overdue reform which is put into place by this Bill is a reform to the contempt laws. The old law states that a person committing a contempt, for example, can be fined up to $50 or imprisoned for 14 days. That is a rather unrealistic penalty and that has now been adjusted to $5,000 or six months. I do not think that that is a provision which is very often dealt with. These days people are very rarely fined or dealt with for contempt of court, but it does happen. We have heard recently of a certain incident where a water jug was sent in the direction of a magistrate. So we do need these sorts of provisions; they are important. Perhaps we could conceive of circumstances where 14 days' imprisonment might not be a satisfactory response to a contempt of court. These provisions in this Bill are much clearer, much more precise than they were before, and I think they will be a useful tool for the courts.
I might just comment that I noticed something rather interesting when I looked at the Magistrates Court Act when I went through this Bill. This Act has already been thoroughly dealt with by those intent on removing sexist language, but it is interesting that what they have done in removing sexist language is to insert the word "she" or "her" as appropriate, but not after "he" or "him" but before them. So, to quote from that provision dealing with contempt, we have expressions which state:
No summons need be issued against any such offender, nor need any evidence be taken on oath, but she or he may be taken into custody then and there by a police officer by order of the Court, and called upon to show cause why she or he should not be convicted.
I found that rather curious. In other pieces of legislation, even those we have dealt with in the last 24 hours, we insert the words "or she" after the word "he" and - - -
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ladies before gentlemen perhaps, Mr Humphries.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .