Page 803 - Week 03 - Thursday, 25 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, in doing this I recognise that the Legal Affairs Committee has just been given an extension of time for another report. I recognise that this puts more work onto the Legal Affairs Committee, but I think that generally there is agreement in the Assembly that there are two styles of reports that committees present. One of their functions is to look at legislation. That is complicated enough in itself, but it does not present the same demands as a full inquiry into basic changes of principle in the way we deal with things.
The Crimes (Amendment) Bill that I refer to, Madam Speaker, is the Bill that provides for the $100 on-the-spot fines for a series of offences. It was tabled by me in this Assembly some time ago. Following the tabling of that Bill, Madam Speaker, both the Liberals and Labor came out in general support in principle for the Bill. That was appreciated and I hope that we will see a bipartisan approach to ensure that the Bill can be the best possible. Mr Connolly wrote to me a letter dated 22 March and, amongst other things, he said:
As you are aware, I consider this Bill has merit, however, there are some points I would like you to consider with a view to amending the Bill.
I am willing to amend the Bill, Madam Speaker, in order to get a bipartisan approach. One of the points that Mr Connolly raised was the sort of information that would be required on an infringement notice. He drew attention to the fact that there appeared to be a conflict with special safeguards in place to protect children under the Children's Services Act 1986. There are limitations in respect of criminal proceedings against children set out in section 33 of that Act. It would not be my intention to do anything in conflict with that Act, Madam Speaker, but I want to be able to resolve that question.
Mr Connolly also pointed out that it appears that the Bill provides for automatic forfeiture of any substance, equipment or object seized under any Act when there is no opportunity, with my Bill being in place, for an offender to apply for the return of his or her belongings. Mr Connolly queried whether persons who have not been convicted of any offence should be liable to forfeiture without compensation. I think we would all agree in principle that Mr Connolly is quite right in questioning that. People ought not have something forfeited arbitrarily. Turning to implementation of the Bill, Mr Connolly also raised the matter of the reprogramming of police computers to be able to handle the information effectively. I think that is also an important issue that needs to be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, in referring this Bill, I have put the date of 13 May 1993, which would be in the next sitting in about six weeks' time. I would hope that Bills before the Assembly which are referred to a committee could be dealt with fairly quickly. It may well be that the committee will come back to the Assembly and ask for an extension of time. I think that would be perfectly reasonable. It is difficult for us to tell just how complicated the issues raised by Mr Connolly will be. However, I think we ought attempt to deal with such Bills as quickly as we can at the committee level. Whilst accepting that it may be necessary for the committee to come back, I recommend that we adopt the timeframe set out in this motion and see whether the committee can meet it. I look forward to a cooperative approach from all members of the Assembly on this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .