Page 2663 - Week 08 - Thursday, 14 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
year, it just does it in an ad hoc fashion. That has meant that we have irregular catch-ups. At the time we argued that that is the way that they should do it, so it would be an administrative measure and it would provide certainly.
But we understand perhaps why the government did not want to take that approach. They did not want to just apply a CPI factor to this, because this was another way that the world’s greediest Treasurer could squeeze money out of people—in this case, potentially, out of pretty vulnerable people.
I am sure Mr Rattenbury, as he has done all day, will just skip along with this one—more money in the coffers for light rail and for other pet projects—because the new values represent an increase of seven per cent and they are not based on any science. They are not based on any attempt to justify this other than, in the attorney’s words, to try and bring it into line with other jurisdictions. But, as you see from other jurisdictions, there are still significant inconsistencies. He talks about Victoria, but Victoria sensibly applies an annual CPI increase to its values, in an administrative process supported by an appropriate statutory mechanism.
The second justification that the Attorney-General gave was that, in his own words, the seven per cent “reflects similar increases to other fees as part of the 2013-14 budget”—well, the lower end of those fees and charges. But, indeed, that is an admission that fees and charges in his budget are going up at more than double CPI. Basically he is saying, “We are going to put everything up in the budget so we may as well put penalty units up as well while we are at it.” That is “logic” for you. There is no logic that has been provided that is actually connected to deterrence or the value of the penalty unit in relation to crimes committed. It is purely and simply a tax grab on the back of four other tax grabs that we have seen today.
There is a missed opportunity here, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make this an administrative process linked to CPI. What we again see is a government that is addicted to spending; in order to feed that addiction, it has got to get its money from wherever it can, be it from rates, from payroll tax, from land tax or from penalty units.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (8.53): This bill increases the value of penalty units, which are defined in the Legislation Act and which determine the amount payable for a statutory penalty. The bill will increase the amount of individual penalty units from $140 to $150 and penalty units for a corporation from $700 to $750. The increase is still in line with penalty amounts that apply in other jurisdictions.
The potential concern with this increase is that it could have an unfair impact on people who might be subject to fines. The Greens have, in the past, done significant work on this matter and it resulted in a new flexible scheme for managing traffic and parking infringements.
The government has for some time been undertaking work on a bigger project called the targeted assistance strategy. The intent is to help disadvantaged people in Canberra avoid potential financial shocks. One way this could arise is from receiving a large fine. The particular worry is for people who might already be disadvantaged—the homeless, for example—and are at risk of receiving fines for public order type
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video