Page 1536 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (8.19): Madam Speaker, the Legal Affairs Committee has responded to an important issue raised by my colleague Mr Moore. I regret that it was necessary for Mr Humphries, the presiding member of the committee, to seek an extension of time for the tabling of this report. It was due last Thursday, 13 May, and it has been presented in the Assembly today. The committee found time to call for submissions addressing the content of the Bill and to hold a public hearing to hear the views of interested people. I would like to thank the representatives from the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Federal Police and the Hon. Justice John Kelly for appearing before the committee and expressing their views.
The list of 15 recommendations included in the report is indicative of the depth and range of issues which committee members considered to be relevant to our discussions regarding the Bill. The report sets out very well our discussion of the issues, beginning with discussion of the purpose of the Bill. Certainly, the submissions, witnesses attending the hearing and committee members all felt that the rationale for the Bill was very sound, as Mr Humphries has described. It is important that our society have available to it a range of options to deal with what are, by and large, minor offences by our citizens. It is also desirable that the Magistrates Court become the province for the hearing of more serious matters rather than having its time taken up again by more minor matters.
There was considerable discussion regarding the range of offences which the Bill includes. There was some discussion about those offences already selected by Mr Moore for inclusion in the Bill, and the committee agreed with him that indecent exposure should be removed from the list. In addition, the offence of possession of offensive weapons generated some discussion as to the appropriateness of including it among the list of those offences nominated for handling by the infringement notice system. However, the committee felt that there was potentially a wider range of offences which could be included under the new system. The committee has asked the ACT Attorney-General's Department to conduct a review of these potential offences promptly, to facilitate the introduction of amending legislation as soon as possible to bring the alternative arrangements into being.
The issues of the level of the fine and its affordability for people financially disadvantaged were also discussed, the outcome being that the $100 fine seemed appropriate and that financially disadvantaged people would be best served through the granting of an extended period to pay the fine. The content of the infringement notice was discussed at length, a number of recommendations having been put forward by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. The committee felt that the standardisation of infringement notices relevant to a number of Acts was most desirable, to facilitate the introduction of this legislation and also to improve the administrative process with regard to a number of other Acts.
This amending legislation has profound consequences for the rights of the accused. When charged with an offence two options present themselves for the handling of the matter - the first a summons to appear in court to defend the charge, and the second the issuing of an infringement notice to be paid with no criminal conviction recorded. Obviously the actions and behaviour of police officers in selecting the course of action to be proceeded with are critical in determining what actually occurs. If and when legislation is introduced the appropriate training of police officers will be an important consideration in achieving a consistency in approach by police officers to offenders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .