Page 713 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To find out more, I wrote to the Attorney-General requesting a copy of the draft regulations that accompanied this bill, as the regulations set out the level of fine to be applied. While the minister was unable or unwilling to provide me with a copy of the regulations, he did state in his response that the quantum of infringement penalty notices is generally set at 20 per cent of the maximum penalty points in the offence provision, meaning $100 or $200 for the offences we are discussing. While I appreciated his response—I am very glad that it came—and I am comfortable with the level of likely penalties, the question remains: will non-permanent graffiti be treated the same as permanent? Furthermore, on what basis can a police officer or a city ranger award a fine that is greater than $100 or $200? I look forward to seeing the regulations, and I will move motion of disallowance if they do not provide proportionate fines for offences.
On the topic of appeals, if a person chooses to dispute a fine under the bill, they can take the matter to the courts. However, in doing so, the offender may face court costs, a possible increase in penalty units, a record against their name and have to prove that they are not guilty of the offence. I expect that many are not willing or able to take this risk, even if they feel they are not guilty, because they have lost access to legal advice and have only limited knowledge of their rights. I would not expect that many of the offenders of this kind are the people who have studied law and know their rights and responsibilities. We are talking about people who are very unlikely to use the avenues that are available to them.
Let us look at the option of converting fines to community service. Last year when we addressed the sentencing bill, I highlighted my concern that fines could not be converted into community service hours, and if a person defaults on a fine they are then subject to imprisonment. Given that the new on-the-spot fines are most likely to affect young people aged between, say, 16 and 25, and their ability to pay a fine is limited, I and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner are concerned about the risk of young people being imprisoned for defaulting on a fine.
My office was informed during the briefing that the ability for courts to convert fines into community service hours is being investigated by JACS, and that is a positive development, but we are not there yet. Given that young people will now be subject to a greater level of fines and the commencement of the Alexander Maconochie Centre may see an increase in the court’s use of imprisonment, I would appreciate it if the Attorney-General could advise the Assembly as to when he intends to introduce a community service scheme for fine defaulters and whether he is willing to make this work a priority for his department.
Just to address the absolute ban on all graffiti, the scrutiny report suggests that an absolute ban on all graffiti is not reasonably possible and possibly not warranted—that is, while one may have a ban on all graffiti, it is very unlikely it will succeed. In any event, it should be acceptable. We should understand it is acceptable for communication of significant public or private interest to take place. The Attorney-General’s office advised my office this morning that the government is providing more sites in Civic for community notices to be legally placed, but this does not adequately address the issue that sometimes notices need to be provided which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .