Page 804 - Week 03 - Thursday, 25 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (11.27): Madam Speaker, as chairman of the committee I can indicate that I have no problems with the reference that Mr Moore is proposing. It seems to me that the committee is the sort of resource that should be available for just such an instance. A Bill with legal implications, as this has, should be referred to it for consideration of problems that have been raised. Clearly, Mr Moore has discussed it with the Minister, and those problems have been addressed. Rather than thrash them out between officers of the Government and Mr Moore, it obviously is more appropriate for a body of the Assembly like this to have them referred to it.
As a matter of principle, we should more often put Bills with difficulties of this kind to appropriate committees of the Assembly. In the last week we have seen the usefulness of having the Adoption Bill referred to the Social Policy Committee, for example. I think this is an example where a committee of the Assembly can be made to work, as Mr Moore indicated, at two levels - one, to do substantive work on issues, that is, develop policy proposals and discuss implications of particular policy matters; and the second, a more mechanical activity, to consider in detail the effectiveness of particular Bills or proposals so that the Assembly can work in the context of more detailed debate than it might be able to manage on the floor. For that reason this is a worthwhile reference. I hope that we can complete the reference by 13 May. I do not think that conflicts too much with our existing inquiry.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.28): Madam Speaker, the Government is quite happy for this private members Bill to go to the committee. It is probably the best example of where a committee might be able to assist. When Mr Moore indicated his intention to introduce private members legislation to extend the range of offences for which on-the-spot fines would apply, I indicated that I thought the idea had some merit and that we would like to look at it in detail. My recollection is that Mr Humphries made very similar statements - that the Opposition could see some merit in it but, again, wanted to reserve its position and look carefully at it.
I have written to Mr Moore, pointing out a number of potential technical and procedural problems with it which he has indicated could well be resolved through this process. I am aware, and I imagine that Mr Humphries, as the opposition spokesman, would also be aware, that there are some issues of principle in this sort of extension of on-the-spot fines as well. It is an issue that, in Victoria, has attracted some criticism from civil liberties groups. There is a very important question of balance here. It is a slope that we do not want to go too far down. We do not want to end up with a system of justice that is totally dependent upon arbitrary on-the-spot fines. Yet, as both the government and opposition spokespersons for the area have said, there is some merit in the scheme. The reference to the committee is a useful way to resolve this in the confines of the committee. The members can look at technical ways of perhaps finessing the Bill to make sure that it is a better technical piece of legislation; also, in a non-partisan committee sense, they can look at some of these issues of principle and civil liberties. It may be that Mr Humphries or Mr Lamont, who is our representative, on mature reflection may want either to further enthuse about it or to pull back from it. They are important issues, and this is a good way of resolving those issues in, hopefully, a non-partisan environment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .