Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 3343 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I am looking for the support of the Assembly in relation to these Bills. I think these are commonsense amendments. I do not think my Children's Services (Amendment) Bill can be argued against with any cogency. It simply asks for the Community Advocate to be involved in situations in which a child is facing detention. For goodness sake, how can you oppose that, all for a fine? All I am asking for is that a child who has not paid a fine should not be detained without the advantage of a report from the Community Advocate, and Mr Rugendyke wants to oppose it. For goodness sake!

I come to the Crimes (Amendment) Bill. Once again, I cannot understand how we can possibly oppose a suggestion that interposed in the range of options that the Attorney has introduced in relation to the treatment of fine defaulters we should allow one additional option. I am not suggesting that we take any away. I am not suggesting that we take away the threat of imprisonment. We are simply suggesting that interposed in the range of options available to the registrar be the potential to refer back to court the question of whether or not, in relation to some fine defaulters, a community service option would be a better option than gaol. That is all my legislation does. How can you possibly argue against that? That is the nature of the amendments proposed, and I recommend these Bills to the Assembly.

Question put:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 8	 	NOES, 9

Mr Berry	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves	Mr Hird
Mr Kaine	Mr Humphries
Mr Quinlan	Mr Moore
Mr Stanhope	Mr Osborne
Ms Tucker	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Wood		Mr Smyth
		Mr Stefaniak

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .