Page 4594 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We think there is great value in allowing people who have incurred fines, particularly where they have incurred fines because of a problem—for example, arising from alcohol, drugs or other issues—to be able to engage in rehabilitation around their alcohol dependency or around their drug dependency as a way of not only paying off the fine but also preventing them from actually incurring future fines. That is a win-win. That is a win for the community, a saving for the community, and one that we should have close regard to.
As Mr Corbell’s words suggest, the bill was important in its recognition of infringement notice fines. For some people, they might simply be nuisance payments. But for those struggling with homelessness, addiction, illness or other problems, they can be enough to trigger a cascade of significant consequence, including a worsening of their existing challenges. Conversely, if dealt with differently, there is an opportunity for a positive outcome for individuals and for the community as a whole. That is Mr Corbell’s win-win.
The bill I am tabling today seeks to extend that same recognition and treatment to other categories of infringement notice offences. This could be, for example, a littering fine, a fine for not picking up after your dog or a fine for fare evasion on public transport. Sadly, it is predictable that there will be people who will respond to this proposal with statements along the lines of, “Don’t do the crime if you do not want to pay the fine.”
In that vein, I note that the Greens are not suggesting at all that there should be no consequences for breaking the law. It is, however, both absurd, as well as tragic, that a fine resulting from a relatively minor offence could be the catalyst for a major financial or stress-related tipping point in someone’s life.
The Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales research program has identified what anyone with some common sense would probably conclude: people who are socially or economically disadvantaged are more vulnerable to attracting fines and less likely to have the means and capacity to pay them. Many of these people spend more time in the public realm than the average person, further increasing the likelihood of being fined for a number of offences, for example, consuming alcohol in a bus interchange or littering.
Infringement fines also have a disproportionate financial impact on people on low incomes. A $180 fine for fare evasion on Transport Canberra, for example, represents two-thirds—two-thirds!—of a weekly Newstart payment. The reason that that Newstart recipient might be failing to pay for their bus or tram ticket may be because they are living in poverty arising from the total inadequacy of this allowance.
The sudden financial shock of a fine does not only affect low income earners. In 2012, the ACT government convened a panel to consider the range of ACT programs designed to assist lower income Canberrans and to develop an evidence-based target and assistance strategy. In the introduction to the report, the chair of the panel, who incidentally is the ACT’s current Attorney-General, noted that there was “a specific focus in the work of the panel on low income households that currently sit just above
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video