Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2010) . . Page.. 2204 ..


undue hardship is set as the key consideration, and then the factors that may be taken into account are listed. This flows from the presentation speech given by the attorney, where he said:

… I would like to reassure members that all orders have safeguards built into them. The most important safeguard is that the court must not make an order if such an order would be unfair or cause undue hardship.

To conclude, these amendments support the intent of the bill and clarify a number of key provisions. The amendments should be made because they reaffirm the important principle that fine enforcement orders will be inappropriate for some fine defaulters. I understand these amendments will be supported, and I thank members in advance for that support, as there is simply an intent, I guess, to just bring that crispness that I think we would all intend into legislation.

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.36): The Liberal opposition will be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendments. In addition to the proposed requirements for the chief executive to state the reasons for seeking fine enforcement, the first amendment would require the chief executive to state why the order would not be unfair or cause undue hardship. This amendment goes to the central theme of the bill and reinforces its support.

The second amendment is similar to the first, adding provision to the requirement for the Magistrates Court to consider questions of fairness and hardship as well as the interests of justice in making a fine enforcement order. The other two amendments are subsequent on those. The Liberal opposition is happy to support these amendments.

MR CORBELL: (Molonglo-Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.37): The government will be supporting these amendments. The amendments require the chief executive to include in an application to the court information about why a fine enforcement order would not be unfair or cause undue hardship. It is likely that the chief executive would have to provide this type of information at some stage in the proceedings in any event. The amendments will allow the court to be in a better position to make a decision, without requiring further information from the chief executive.

Under the current proposed wording of the provision, the court will be required to take into account the hardship caused when deciding an application on the grounds of the interests of justice. The amendments will emphasise the notion of undue hardship and unfairness already entrenched in the provision. Therefore, the government will support these amendments as they reflect the underlying policy intent in the new fine enforcement scheme.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video