Page 2530 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, having moved this amendment, and it having been on the program, I now seek leave to withdraw it, given the fact that I have argued myself out of it.
Leave granted.
Amendment withdrawn.
Schedule 1, amendments 1.82 and 1.83, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1, proposed new amendments 1.83A to 1.83F, by leave, taken together.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Disability and Community Services, Minister for Women) (6.33): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 52 to 57 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MS GALLAGHER: I move amendments Nos 52 to 57 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 2549]. I spoke about these measures when I closed the in-principle debate. They relate to young offenders who are fine defaulters. They amend a couple of pieces of legislation and set in place a process to avoid their being unnecessarily sent to a detention centre. They put in place a process to deal with that.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (6.35): These amendments were brought to my attention this morning. I have been trying to find, in the various acts, including the current act, what the adult provision is. Clearly, with children, courts often do not impose fines, for the simple reason that young people do not have any money to pay them. They usually rely on other orders. In some instances, however, young people may be working and they may have the capacity to pay. It is quite common, for example, for a 17-year-old driver charged with drink-driving to be fined $300 or $400 and, in default, a certain of amount of time would normally be served. They would be given time to pay; indeed, the courts have always been quite reasonable in ensuring that people have enough time to pay a fine. People can usually apply to the registrar if they need a bit of extra time, and that is an eminently sensible suggestion.
My understanding—and I stand to be corrected here—is that these amendments take out the word “must” and put in “may”. As I said, I am uncertain as to whether these amendments merely follow amendments in the adult jurisdiction or whether they are somewhat different, having regard to the use of the word “may”. I will give a caution in relation to this matter. If a young person clearly has the capacity to pay and they are thumbing their nose at the system, what is proposed here in terms of a default of one day for each $300, or up to seven days, is quite reasonable. In those sorts of situations, I would hate to see a court fettered by having the word “may” included in this proposed section rather than something stronger. Quite clearly, if it is appropriate and if someone has the capacity, and if they simply thumb their nose at the system, the whole idea of having a default system is to ensure that there is some penalty attached to not paying, and some detention is necessary. What is proposed here is eminently reasonable in terms of a young person in that regard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .