Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4290 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

The Government has proposed that the levy will apply to all convictions, whether in the Supreme Court, the Magistrates Court or the Children's Court, except for prosecutions relating to infringement notices. The Bill also provides for a discretion to vary or disregard the levy in certain circumstances, particularly relating to child offenders and multiple offenders. The Estimates Committee recommended that the Government undertake some consultation on this Bill, and the Government indicates that it has done so and incorporated suggested changes as a result of that consultation. That being the case, we will be supporting the Bill.

Having said that, I have to say that I support it not without some reservations. For example, the proposed Bill would levy $30 on a convicted offender, whether they are convicted of a violent crime which is likely to have given rise to a claim under criminal injuries compensation or a non-violent crime, whether a serious crime or a less serious crime. In that sense, the levy falls somewhat arbitrarily on convicted offenders. Someone who is convicted of an offence such as shoplifting, which is a serious offence but not an offence that in the normal course of events is liable to give rise to a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, will be paying $30, as will someone who is convicted of a much more serious offence, such as grievous bodily harm, which is highly likely to lead to a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

I think there is some measure of injustice in the way the levy is spread; but, having regard to the quantum of the levy and the fact that this scheme operates in other States, and having regard to the need to seek to defray some of the costs of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Opposition will be supporting this measure. We will be taking an interest in how it goes. As I understand it, the levy will meet only a quite small proportion of the costs of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and there may indeed be pressure in the future for additional measures. I hope that, in looking at additional measures, some account is taken of the nature of offences and how those offences relate to the possibility of the victims of those offences being able to make claims under the scheme.

MR MOORE (11.12): Mr Speaker, there are times when it gives me some anguish to have made a commitment to support Government budgets, and this is one of those times. This was certainly introduced as a budget measure and, as such, I know I have a commitment to support it; but I do so with several objections. The amendment, first of all, is no more than a revenue measure, and I have to ask the question: Is it acceptable for justice policy to be merely budget driven? That appears to be what is happening here, and Mr Whitecross has touched on a number of the issues I want to deal with. To me, there is an interference in this legislation with judicial independence. In principle, I do not believe that the legislature should be setting a fee in this way. What we should be doing is setting a capacity for sentences to be imposed rather than what in this case is, effectively, a mandatory sentence. I think it is an inappropriate way to operate.

I am conscious that in other States there has been the introduction in a broad sense of mandatory sentencing. It is something I have always objected to. I think it undermines the judiciary. I think it undermines the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary, and the same applies in a minor way in this case. I am also conscious that in the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .