Page 2203 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Officers from my department are liaising with officers from Centrelink with a view to accessing Centrelink’s centrepay scheme. Centrepay is a direct billing service offered to people who receive regular payments from Centrelink. Centrepay is available for a range of expenses, including rent, utility bills and, of particular relevance, court fines. This service is both free and voluntary for a person receiving regular payments from Centrelink. The person receiving the Centrelink payments has a choice.
The ability of fine defaulters who receive a Centrelink payment to use centrepay will result in a person being able to discharge their debt in a way that is the least onerous on the person. It will also mean that outstanding fines will be recovered and a person will discharge their criminal sanction imposed by the court.
This bill is an important reform to the territory’s criminal law. The raft of fine enforcement options will allow some flexibility in the way in which fine defaulters discharge their court-imposed fines. The new options will also increase the territory’s ability to recover outstanding fines. I thank those members who have indicated their support for the bill today, and I commend it to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.33), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 to 4 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 2211].
These amendments, as I touched on earlier, clarify the proposed legislation and put into effect the stated intent of the government. At the heart of our amendments is the acknowledgement that the chief executive of JACS has an important discretionary role in how this legislation is applied.
One key role for the chief executive is making the choice between applying for a fine enforcement order and applying for a voluntary community work order. The two are quite different, as I touched on earlier. A fine enforcement order authorises government intervention into a fine defaulter’s personal bank account or the seizure and sale of their property. On the other hand, a voluntary community work order enables a defaulter to repay their fine through community work. So the chief executive has an important decision to make. In light of the financial circumstances of the fine defaulter, what is the most appropriate method—fine enforcement or voluntary work?
Amendment 1 requires the chief executive to set out the reasons why he or she believes that a fine enforcement order would not be unfair or cause undue hardship. The amendment would require them to set out the reasons for their intended course of action. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 clarify what the primary consideration is for the court when deciding whether to make a fine enforcement order. The test of unfairness or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video