Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2049 ..
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.59): Mr Speaker, I present the explanatory memorandum to government amendments to the bill. I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name:
"2 Commencement
This Act commences on the day it is notified in the Gazette.".
The amendment simply seeks to replace the 1 July commencement date to a date notified in the Gazette. Given the delay and given the lateness of these sittings, that date is probably likely to be around 3 or 4 July.
Amendment agreed to.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.00): I move:
Clause 4, page 2, line 4, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:
"4 Imposition of levy
Section 68 is amended by omitting subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection and note:
'(1) If a person is convicted of an offence that this Part applies to, the person is liable to pay the Territory-
(a) if the offence was committed before the commencement of this subsection-a levy of $30; or
(b) if the offence was committed partly before and partly on or after the commencement of this subsection-a levy of $30; or
(c) if the offence was committed on or after the commencement of this subsection-a levy of $50.
'Note This subsection commenced on the day the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance) Amendment Act 2000 (No 2) was notified in the Gazette (see s 2 of that Act).'.".
When I spoke this morning I foreshadowed that I would be moving this amendment and I outlined the reasons for doing so. As I indicated-and we have just agreed to the bill in principle-the Labor Party has no objection to the intent of the amendment the Attorney has moved today to increase the levy to be paid by convicted persons from $30 to $50. However, the scrutiny of bills committee did raise a couple of points by way of objection to the bill presented by the Attorney. First, they say that there is an element of retrospectivity in that a person convicted after the commencement of these amendments would be subject to a heavier penalty than that which applied at the date the offence was committed. The amendments to the bill circulated by the Attorney-we have just dealt with an amendment to remove reference to 1 July 2000-do not otherwise affect the issue raised by the committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .