Page 1676 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
between us is clear. It is entirely a matter for the director as to how he chooses to engage in these matters.
Amendment agreed to.
Part 1.10, amendments 1.22 to 1.26, as amended, agreed to.
Parts 1.11 to 1.16, amendments 1.27 to 1.35, by leave, taken together.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.06), by leave: I move amendments Nos 10 to 15 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1732].
These amendments omit amendments 1.27 to 1.35 from schedule 1 to the bill. These amendments deal with the matters associated with the definition of indictable offences.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1.11 to 1.16, amendments 1.27 to 1.35, as amended, agreed to.
Part 1.16, amendment 1.36 agreed to.
Part 1.17, proposed new amendments 1.36A to 1.36D.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.07): I move amendment No 16 circulated in my name which inserts schedule 1, part 1.17, proposed new amendments 1.36A to 1.36D [see schedule 1 at page 1732].
This amendment makes a number of further consequential amendments. Primarily it disapplies the operation of section 92A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 for a matter for which an election has been made that is dealt with summarily. Section 92A allows the Magistrates Court to commit a person to the Supreme Court for sentencing. It would create a nonsense if it were allowed to apply to matters dealt with under new clause 374 on the basis that the idea was to keep these matters in the Magistrates Court.
I think this is one of those issues where it shows that the new 374 will be used mainly for simple, straightforward matters for people who do not have a particularly long criminal history and, therefore, will be dealt with rather quickly. It would be a bit ludicrous if it was decided to deal with this matter summarily and impose a maximum two-year penalty and then the magistrate was in a situation where they wanted to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for sentencing. This amendment to section 92A of the Magistrates Court makes it perfectly clear that that cannot be the case in this circumstance.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.09): The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We believe it is an important amendment as it closes down a potential loophole that, if ever activated, would cause natural justice to be denied. The existing section 92A of the Magistrates Court Act allows a magistrate to hear an indictable offence, determine guilt, and then send the accused to the Supreme Court for the full
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video