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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4508 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

It seems to me that, with the Community Law Reform Committee report, we are moving too early to give agreement to this Bill in principle. Nevertheless, I repeat my plea to Mr Humphries: If he has amendments and Mr Moore and Mr Osborne have amendments, let us see those amendments as early as possible, and not too far into next week. As it stands at the moment, the Opposition cannot support this Bill in principle.

MS TUCKER (8.23): Considering we are debating this Bill only up to the in-principle stage, I am prepared to support Mr Moore's legislation, but with reservations. The principle behind the legislation is worthy, even if the execution is perhaps questionable. The aim of the Bill is to introduce an alternative procedure for police to use in dealing with street offences by imposing a $100 fine for offenders for a range of offences. I do not think it was Mr Moore's intention to provide an easy avenue for people to legally escape responsibility for their potentially serious criminal acts, nor to provide an inappropriate tool for the police to use to deal with issues such as drug and alcohol problems. In principle, we support measures that will stop clogging up the courts, but I think there are a number of issues that need much more discussion and consideration.

The most critical issue in this legislation is the list of summary offences to which this will apply. I note that in the 1993 Assembly committee report on this issue there was a recommendation that the ACT Attorney-General's Department promptly conduct a review of all legislation with a view to recommending summary offences to which the infringement notice system could appropriately apply. I am not sure whether this happened or not, and perhaps the current Attorney-General could enlighten me on that.

The Community Law Reform Committee did inquire into street offences and released a comprehensive report earlier this year. The report concluded that ACT law dealing with private behaviour in public places is fragmented and should be simplified and consolidated. They also recommended that on-the-spot fines should not be introduced for revenue raising purposes and that section 546A, which relates to fighting, should not be subject to an on-the-spot fine because there is a prospect that assault is involved. If it is the result of a minor altercation, police intervention will generally suffice to restore public order, and further police action, other than a caution, would be inappropriate. They also said that subsection 482(1), which relates to misbehaviour at public meetings, should not be subject to an on-the-spot fine because of the discretion needed to be brought to bear in committing an offence. The Community Law Reform Committee also believed that possession of offensive weapons and public mischief should not be the subject of an on-the-spot fine either. The Community Law Reform Committee report did highlight two of the offences that were not contentious - noise abatement offences and drinking in public places.

I am particularly sympathetic to the argument about the inappropriateness of including possession of offensive weapons in a Bill such as this. This is a serious offence. Possession of offensive weapons can cause serious injuries. In speaking with someone about this Bill yesterday, he pointed out that a client of his recently was imprisoned for six months for such an offence.

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