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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 4 March 2004) . . Page.. 788 ..

offence. I understand that Ms Dundas is concerned that this is a strict liability provision. For this reason, the government has not proposed a term of imprisonment to be attached to the offence. The offence has been drafted as a strict liability offence because it is important that people comply with prohibition notices. The fact that the offence is a strict liability offence simply means that, in a prosecution under this provision, the DPP does not need to prove that the breach was intentional, reckless or negligent.

Under the Criminal Code the defence of mistake of fact is available for all strict liability offences. If a person thought that a prohibition notice did not require them to stop using a particular piece of equipment, but the notice did require them to stop using that equipment, they would have a defence to a prosecution.

MS TUCKER (5.27): We will be supporting this amendment which reduces strict liability penalties from 200 penalty units—$20,000 for a person and $100,000 for a corporation—to 100 penalty units—$10,000 or $50,000—which is perhaps more reasonable. It can be argued that these two offences ought to have a higher level of penalties than others that are currently set at 100 units, but the question really is about the level of penalty appropriate to offences where there is not a mental component.

You may not know that you have done wrong and there may be no recklessness or negligence involved. It may be an offence but not be considered a crime. I would say that 10 penalty units are probably too high for strict liability offences. If we need a higher level of penalty then mental elements, such as negligence or recklessness, could be factored in.

MR PRATT (5.28): Mr Speaker, we will support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 120 to 127, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 128.

MS DUNDAS (5.29): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 817].

Again, this amendment changes the strict liability offence from 200 penalty units to 100 penalty units. I understand that this amendment will go down as the last amendment did, but I think it is an important point to make that we are talking about a strict liability offence here and that we are attaching quite an onerous penalty. I still believe, despite the words of the minister, that 100 penalty units would be a better requirement here.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.30): The government will be opposing this amendment. The proposed amendment would again halve the penalty attached to the offence of breaching an enforceable undertaking. Before a person could be charged with this offence, the following things would have to happen first: (1) the person admits to the chief executive that they have been breaching the act; (2) the person gives an

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