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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4781 ..

Ms Tucker: It is up to the magistrate to decide.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes.

Ms Tucker: The person could be issued with a warrant.

MR HUMPHRIES: They could be; but the process is such that it then goes back before a magistrate, and the automatic issuing of the warrant does not occur. The point of the amendments moved by Mr Moore is very simple, from my point of view at least. The ultimate objective that I see in this legislation is to free police resources to deal with other matters out on the streets of Canberra, to get away from the need for police to be tied up in processes dealing with particular actions that are, if you like, of an administrative kind. The issuing of notices is an administrative act; but it is the single act that, in most cases, will be performed by a police officer to achieve a resolution of the particular offence which is alleged to have been committed in respect of a particular matter.

If someone is seen drinking in a public place and they decline to pour the contents of their bottle down the gutter, an infringement notice is written out and delivered to that person. In most cases, that is the end of the matter. The person has the option of going to court and contesting the notice - that is fine - in which case, the police will come and give evidence in the court. If the person does not pay the fine, then, clearly, a process of enforcement needs to begin.

Members of this place are well aware that there are very large amounts of public money outstanding at the moment, relating to a range of fines and court-imposed costs and penalties, which the Government is attempting to retrieve and in respect of which it has announced already some measures to attempt to wind them back. We do not assist the process of addressing those outstanding fines if we complicate the process and make it, in a sense, more laborious when it comes to dealing with the consequences of a failure to pay a fine. A person who is subject to a fine is, if you like, in the privileged position of not being subject to a charge. The alternative is that they are charged or fined under this infringement notice system. If they are charged, then they are into the court system straightaway. If they are fined, then they are, if you like, exempted from that process, providing they pay their fine. If they have not paid their fine, then it is appropriate that they go back into the system which they were exempted from by the original issuing of the infringement notice.

Ms Tucker's amendment has the effect of extending that process - if you like, that civil process - resulting in the magistrate having to make a decision about what to do. It is a more complicated process. Presumably, there has to be evidence sworn before the magistrate by the police officers concerned. It entails more taking of police off the beat and putting them in the court setting. That is not the objective behind this legislation. I would strongly urge members, if they believe this is an appropriate step to take, not to undermine its effectiveness by deleting proposed new subsections (9) and (10) of the proposed new section 575.

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