Page 3633 - Week 12 - Thursday, 13 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The greatest innovation has been the introduction of penalty units. This will ensure that penalties maintain their punitive value over time. For example, category 9 covers offences which are of a very minor nature, such as failure to report a change of address. It imposes a maximum fine of only $100. At the other end of the scale, however, in category 1, the penalty is a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine. This would be for only the most serious breaches of law of a social nature.
The work that was undertaken by the Legal Affairs Committee, which is the subject of this report, was to ensure that the penalties were consistent. It is important to understand the historic basis for this Bill. Many penalties as set down under legislation passed over many decades in most cases were set many years ago and under different policy regimes. This has led to inconsistent application of penalties. In fact, some penalties are even inconsistent with other penalties in the same piece of legislation. There has been a great deal of public confusion concerning what penalties are imposed by individual pieces of legislation in the ACT. There has also been a great deal of confusion because some penalties seem to be greater for offences which appear to be of a minor nature when compared with offences which the public perceive as being much more serious.
It is proposed by the committee that the penalty review principles be incorporated into the preamble to the Bill. This will enhance the policy of the Labor Government of raising the level of understanding in the community concerning the basis for statutory penalties. In the schedule to the Bill, reference has been made to particular pieces of legislation. In doing so, there has been an acceptance of the rule contained in penalty review principle No. 6. This principle is that the Executive should be prevented from imposing significant fines in place of the legislature doing so. The Bill has also followed the committee's recommendation that the prison penalties should not be imposed by regulations.
The committee also recommended that there be more consistency of approach in cases where penalties can be levelled on both a person and a body corporate. Some pieces of legislation make a distinction between these two different kinds of legal entities, and in some cases they do not. The Government has thus sought to set up a more consistent approach towards the different treatment of penalties incurred by individuals and by bodies corporate. This will be a major step in the right direction for law reform in the ACT. Individuals should be treated differently from bodies corporate because, in many cases, the latter are not deterred by fines which are highly punitive when levelled on a single person.
The Bill also did not shy away from the contentious issue of the mandatory reporting of child abuse. The Bill has increased by four times the penalty of failing to report such cases.
Mr Humphries: Five times, actually.
MRS GRASSBY: Five times; I am sorry. Thank you very much, Mr Humphries. I think that a lot of people will be very pleased to know that, because this has always been a contentious matter. Child abuse is one of the most serious social and criminal issues of our time, and the Government introduced these measures so as to reduce the number of cases which go without investigation. There have been very large increases in the fine,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .