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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4293 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

but that is not, unfortunately, in my view, readily possible. Yes, this is a revenue-raising measure, but it is raising revenue from that class of people who are directly contributing to the problem that needs to be addressed. I make no apologies for looking to them to help address this increasing financial responsibility imposed on the taxpayers of the Territory.

It is true that a number of other issues that were raised by the Estimates Committee - and indeed by members of the Assembly during debate on this matter - have been addressed. Particularly, I want to address the point made - not today but previously - by Ms Follett in respect of this legislation. She said that it had the potential, as a penalty for people who appeared before the courts, to punish people twice for the same offence. Mr Moore raised the question of consultation on these measures. Let me say, in the first instance, that in my experience it is extremely rare for governments to consult about new taxes or new revenue-raising measures before they are actually implemented. If we have not consulted about that before implementation we are not by any means the first government or, I am sure, the last to fail to do so. Revenue-raising measures, by their nature, tend to be the sort of thing that you need to announce without notice in order to obviate the opportunities for avoidance or - - -

Mr Moore: There is not much opportunity for avoidance on this one, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: There is not much opportunity on this occasion, but the pattern is usually not to announce revenue-raising measures in advance.

Mr Speaker, we have taken seriously the recommendation of the Estimates Committee. The Government consulted particularly with the legal community about the provisions in this legislation before it was brought back to the house today. Let me record that I do not think the Criminal Law Consultative Committee was happy about the idea of imposing extra costs on what are ultimately the clients of those members of that committee in many cases; but they were, I am advised, not concerned in the least about the concept of punishing people twice for the same offence. I believe it is true to say that they acknowledge that imposing a $30 penalty is merely the equivalent of an increase, if you like, in the orders for court costs or other party costs or in the fine imposed by the court. It is a charge that the convicted person needs to meet, and there is no question of punishing a person twice for the same offence.

Mr Berry: But it is a penalty for somebody else's offence.

MR HUMPHRIES: No; it is a penalty for having committed the offence and relates to the cost that the community has to bear for having to deal with that offence. There is no relationship between what damage a person has caused in the broader community and what they have to pay. Therefore, in that sense, it is not a second penalty or a charge related to a particular person's misdemeanour. It is a flat fee, as Mr Moore points out; and it goes directly to the overall cost to the community of administering the scheme. There has been wider consultation on this issue. I do not make apologies for having introduced this measure or announced this measure without consultation because it is, by its nature, the kind of thing which governments traditionally need to announce in that fashion.

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