Page 1655 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provisions. In cases of people who are on low incomes or in debt, I am advised that the payments can be as low as $5 per week.
The government also has the power to remit fines, and I am advised that, in cases of people who are destitute or in severe debt, the court staff provide information about the remission of fines and, in many cases, assist people with applications. The statistical evidence, supported by advice from the court staff, suggests that a large number of fine defaulters can afford to pay but will not engage to make payments until a warrant is issued for imprisonment.
Last financial year, 1,389 warrants of imprisonment were issued for a fine default. This is a shocking figure. The fact that a warrant is issued does not mean that the person ends up in prison. Approximately 95 per cent of all the imprisonment warrants issued result in the fine defaulters paying their outstanding fines. So the fact that the warrant is there is enough to acquire or get the payment. Because the Magistrates Court Act suspends the warrant if a person pays the fine, most people subject to a warrant immediately negotiate with the registrar for instalments or automatic deductions or they just pay the fine.
I am unhappy to say that last financial year 50 people were imprisoned to account for their fines, and this year 48 people will be imprisoned. The government would like to see the figure at zero. The government is aware of this problem and took note of what the community advised during consultation on the 2004 exposure draft of the government’s sentencing bill. All stakeholders told us, and the government agreed, that some kind of community service in lieu of imprisonment is a good idea.
However, as I have already indicated, it cannot be at the expense of overwhelming the existing community service system. What is needed is an alternative that is commensurate with a fine, not commensurate with imprisonment. Working out a holistic solution to the problem is a significant exercise and quite complex, as it must take into account the territory’s system of infringement notices and court-imposed fines. The government supports an alternative to imprisonment, but there is no quick fix. An alternative must be viable. Being aware of the problem, the government has taken steps to reduce the number of people who may end up in prison to the greatest degree possible.
Section 14 of the government’s sentencing act is crafted to reduce the number of people who could not afford to pay fines at the front end of the sentencing process. The sentencing act requires a sentencing court to consider any facts presented by an offender about their financial situation when the court is thinking about imposing a fine. The act also allows payment to be made by instalments.
The government’s sentencing act also includes an offender’s financial circumstances as part of the sentencing considerations in section 33. Again, the point of these provisions is to reduce the number of people who cannot afford to pay a fine or to minimise the financial impact of a fine. As an extra measure, I have also asked my department to explore the idea of making decisions to remit fines an automatic part of the fine default process if a person is about to be imprisoned. I believe this may also assist to ensure that only those people who can truly afford to pay their fines, but obstinately refuse to do so, would be liable to time in the remand centre.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .