Page 4112 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (5.36): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 5 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR STEFANIAK: I move amendments Nos 1 to 5 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 4130].
As I indicated earlier, my amendments would bring this bill into line with acts in other states in relation to money going to victims of crime as a result of the imposition of levies. I hear what the Attorney-General says in relation to speeding, and that is why I used that example of someone going 45 kilometres over the speed limit and probably being an accident waiting to happen, as opposed to someone inadvertently being about 5 kilometres over the speed limit. The big difference—this is why I think you need a differentiation—between an offence like speeding or any of those types of traffic offences listed in the bill in the infringement notices, which are minor offences, and something like an assault, a burglary or a larceny—the types of offences in criminal law that often attract fines—is basically mens rea.
Infringement notices involve offences of negligence, inadvertence. Not too many people set out to get caught going five or 10 kilometres over the speed limit. You can argue that someone is being a complete idiot and being grossly negligent when they are going 45 kilometres or more over the limit, and that is why they attract such a huge fine—a much bigger fine, I might add, than people committing crimes under the criminal law actually often get, but I do not quibble with that. It is an offence of negligence or inadvertence as opposed to a premeditated offence—an offence where there is actual intent—and that is why it is important. Other states seem to have realised this.
I can understand the Attorney-General’s desire to actually have something that is simple, and this scheme certainly is. But other states, including smaller jurisdictions like the Northern Territory and South Australia, manage with a graduated scale. I do not think it would be that difficult to administer. That recognises that people who commit more serious offences, crimes where there is actually an intent, where they cannot get an infringement notice because the offence is deemed too serious, should pay more because they invariably cause much more trauma to victims, and there are invariably more victims as a result of those offenders than someone who is just pinged for a traffic infringement notice through their negligence. That is the reason for the amendment.
I have already indicated that my provision would ensure that young people could be incorporated here, although I note the court has a discretion in clause 4 to exonerate a person under 18 if the circumstances deem that to be appropriate. My amendment would bring us in line with everywhere else. As I said earlier, a 17-year-old can be just as culpable as an 18-year-old in regard to whatever offence they may commit, be it an infringement notice offence or an offence under the Criminal Code or the Crimes Act, and indeed may commit even more hideous offences sometimes. I think we should adopt what everyone else does.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .