Page 2292 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The infringement notices in the bill would carry, in most cases, a $200 fine. That would save an immense amount of police and court time. At present, if someone is caught urinating in public or fighting in a public place, police have to arrest them, take them back to the station, process them and put them before the court. It is a very lengthy process and it takes up an inordinate amount of police and court time. Quite often, nothing much happens to them there, anyway. The police can be better used on the beat, combating more serious crime. It will also save valuable court time and at the end of the day it saves the offender time. As with traffic matters, when people get an infringement notice, invariably they tend to pay it. I would imagine the same would apply here; it certainly applies in other states where it is used. But the option is also there for the offender to have their day in court.
As I said earlier, when this scheme was introduced in New South Wales, the number of offences halved in a very short period of time. I would hope that the government would back this sensible measure, or at least back it in part. There are a number of offences which police indicated they would like to see included here as well, such as shoplifting. There are a few technical complications with that, but that is probably not a bad idea. I have concentrated here on basic street offences, together with some related offences under the Liquor Act. The Australian Hotels Association and businesses are very keen to see infringement notices in this regard. For things such as under-age drinking, it simplifies what can be a very time-consuming and lengthy process. Of course, if people want their day in court, they can have it.
There are a couple of instances in the bill where the current penalty is two penalty units or less, and in that case I propose a $100 infringement notice. In most instances, however, it is about 10 penalty units, which is $1,000. In a couple of instances there might even be a term of imprisonment involved. The legislation would apply to everyone to whom the police deem it necessary to issue an infringement notice. So I think it is a very sensible scheme.
I will now go through what is contained in the bill. Firstly, the name of the act, the commencement date and what it amends—that is all standard. There are a couple of new dot points. I have enhanced the current offensive behaviour section, section 392, to add a couple of additional definitional points regarding disorderly or offensive behaviour. I think they enhance the police’s ability to deal with this behaviour, having regard to any problems they have had with the definition of the offence. These definitional changes will greatly assist in that area. Clause 5 deals with disorderly or offensive behaviour. Currently, section 392 states:
A person shall not in, near, or within the view or hearing of a person in, a public place behave in a riotous, indecent, offensive or insulting manner.
The new offence I am proposing greatly enhances this by stating that a person must not behave in a disorderly or offensive manner in or near a public place or school. It was felt, in my discussions with police, that by including “school”, it left beyond any doubt that they would have this ability. Such incidents have cropped up, and this provision may well assist police in diffusing any problems that might take place in or near a school.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .