Page 3646 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 16 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PAWNBROKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
[COGNATE BILLS:
SECOND-HAND DEALERS AND COLLECTORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
TRUCK (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990]
Debate resumed from 18 September 1990, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Second-hand Dealers and Collectors (Amendment) Bill 1990 and the Truck (Amendment) Bill 1990? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 1 they may also address their remarks to orders of the day No. 2 and No. 3.
MR CONNOLLY (4.09): Mr Speaker, the Opposition supports each of these three measures that are now before the house. They are not, at first glance, measures of great significance, but in fact they do provide the substratum for a lot of the consumer protection law that applies in the Territory. In each case they are amendments to old New South Wales enactments which had long been the law in this Territory and which, in the process of the 1986 review of New South Wales legislation, were identified as having certain features that were outdated and undesirable.
The Senate committee, when it was examining the application of the New South Wales Acts in 1986, indicated that it would be appropriate in the future for the authorities responsible for the ACT to look at this body of law and attempt to bring it up to date and remove certain objectionable or unacceptable features. It was in order to implement that undertaking that the Attorney-General first introduced Bills with similar names into this place in May of this year.
The Opposition at that time had some criticisms of the amendment Bills, principally drawing attention to the fact that many of the penalty provisions in the Bills had not been adjusted to keep pace with changing times. This is a problem that we find throughout the body of law in this Territory. Many penalties of $20 or $40 that apply in ACT legislation can be traced back to a 20 pounds or 10 pounds penalty provision that was simply amended in the 1960s to reflect decimal currency.
We suggested at that time, and I would suggest again, that the Government look at the possibility of prescribing penalties by way of penalty units throughout legislation so that amendments would be made on a regular basis to one Act that would have the effect of bringing the monetary penalties throughout the whole body of ACT law up to date
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .