Page 2197 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There is one positive in all of this, and that is that the scrutiny committee proposes—and I quote from the committee’s report No 23—“to develop a position paper on the issue of the desired content of an explanatory statement”. I think that this will be a good move and will help inform departments and ministers, and also members of this place, about the importance of this extrinsic material.
All that said, the bill that the attorney has put forward, notwithstanding the shortcomings of its delivery, has merit. Let me go into the detail. The scheme of enforcement options that this bill introduces is divided into a number of stages. The first involves the suspension of the driver’s licence, including prevention from getting one, which already exists. Then follows suspension of car registration and, finally, provision of the defaulter’s details to a credit provider.
The next stage involves an examination order, meaning the JACS department can examine the financial position of the defaulter and their capacity to pay. If the defaulter fails to comply or gives false and misleading information an arrest warrant can be issued so the defaulter is required to provide the information under oath in a court hearing.
Finally, the court, on the application of JACS, will be able to issue a range of fine enforcement orders but, in doing so, must have regard to whether the order would cause undue hardship. Orders can be income redirection, subject to income protection legislation; financial institution deduction by lump sum or instalment; seizure and sale of personal property, subject to time limits, applications for the return of the property and whether the property constitutes a “necessity of life”; and voluntary community work orders to be administered by Volunteering ACT. Under these arrangements the debt will be discharged at the rate of $37.50 per hour.
I note that in New South Wales the discharge rate is only $15 per hour. I also note that voluntary community work orders will not be available to persons previously convicted of a violent offence. If all else fails, barring imprisonment, the chief executive can remit the fine. If the last resort of imprisonment is ordered, the fine is discharged at the rate of $300 per day or $500 per day for a person under 18 years at the time the offence was committed which led to the fine being imposed. I note that the current rate of discharge is $100. The reparations provisions, which I referred to earlier, will mean that victims of crime will not need to pursue a civil action to seek reparation. Reparation orders will follow the same scheme as for recovery of court-imposed fines that I have outlined.
I note from the Attorney-General’s presentation speech that these reforms will bring the ACT into line with other jurisdictions. I would add here, Mr Assistant Speaker, that while it does bring us into line with other jurisdictions, we are almost unique in being a human rights jurisdiction. If we do make such impositions as seizing people’s property, for instance, to pay fines, it does have implications in relation to the operation of the Human Rights Act. It is incumbent upon the Attorney-General, of all people in this place, to recognise that.
It is quite clear that the policy intent is to ensure that the community is not left out of pocket by people failing to pay their fines and that that is an appropriate motivation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video