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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2048 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

It also occurred to me that if, in fact, somebody could not pay the levy then that onus and responsibility would fall back onto the family of the person. I know that the amount is only $30-it is only going to be $50-and I do not think anybody in this chamber has any difficulty with the size of the amounts and the intent of the government to increase the figure.

If the $30 is regarded as a punishment, as a fine, and the issue of retrospectivity is involved, then I believe that this is a serious matter. I concur with the explanation from the legal adviser, Mr Bayne, that it is a double punishment, and a punishment after the event. If you are going to knock over a supermarket you would really want to know how much you are going to get done for. I would not want to knock it over thinking that I am going to get six months and a thousand dollar fine, and then find out, much to my horror, after I had been convicted that somebody had gone and doubled it. That would be dreadful; I would be most upset.

I believe that what we are really talking about here is reparation and not a fine or a punishment. It is paying something back to the community for damage that has been incurred. In that sense, we need to consider whether retrospectivity is okay or not. For my own part, I think we should take the line that where the retrospectivity is going to be to the benefit of somebody then it is okay. I do not want to be held to that forever more and nailed to the fence for it, but generally speaking I think that is the case.

If, on the other hand, the retrospectivity acts to the detriment of somebody, I think we should have a standard in this place where we say no to it. After all, there is not going to be a humungous amount gained from this issue. There are not going to be bucket loads of money that we can apply to victims of crime schemes. Essentially, very little has been collected from this particular exercise anyway. I do not see any harm in us saying that if the conviction occurs on or after 1 July, so too can the increase. I do not think we would be forgoing anything of a huge size.

I would need some convincing by the minister that we were going to forgo an enormous amount of money before I would consider agreeing to the fundamental principle of retrospectivity, which could act as a detriment to somebody coughing up the money or the payment falling back on their family. I am a bit concerned about that, Mr Speaker.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.58), in reply: Mr Speaker, I rise to close the debate. Rather than comment in detail on the amendment that Mr Stanhope is going to move, I will wait till he moves it and pass some comment then.

I simply reiterate the fact that this bill arises out of a draft budget process recommendation of the Justice and Community Safety Committee. The recommendation seemed sensible and reasonable to the government and the government proposes to adopt it. I think that $50 is eminently affordable for most people, given that the fines that they pay will probably be well in excess of that in any case, and the court allows time to pay these things. I think it is reasonable to expect that there ought to be a higher level of penalty met by offenders in these circumstances, bearing in mind that, as Mr Hargreaves pointed out, it is not so much a matter of a penalty but reparation which is being paid towards those who have suffered some harm.

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