Page 2770 - Week 09 - Thursday, 8 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
four years. The penalty units system introduced in 2001 is a simple and efficient system which applies to all legislation that imposes financial penalties. It does away with the previous system, which was to set penalties in each piece of legislation, thus requiring multiple amendments every time they changed.
As we see from today’s bill, a change in penalties requires only one simple bill, the effect of which automatically promulgates to every related piece of legislation. This means that the government can review the penalty values easily and regularly and it enables them to keep pace with inflation and community expectations as well as to ensure the preservation of suitable and adequate deterrence for law-breakers.
However, whilst the efficiency of its intent is good, the government’s application has been tardy. Instead of taking the opportunity to review the penalty values regularly, perhaps using CPI as a basis—thus allowing the values to keep pace with inflation—the government has made only one review previously, in 2009, since the system was introduced in 2001.
At that time the unit values were increased by 10 per cent, or around three times the then inflation rate. Another four years down the track and we are seeing only the second review in 12 years with another substantial increase—this time by almost 30 per cent. The government determined this increase by going back to 2001 and applying the annual consumer price index to the unit values at that time. In effect, and this is typical of this government, it has once again had to play catch-up because it simply does not understand the concept of efficiency.
What message is the government sending to law-breakers? As each year goes by with no changes to penalty values, the relative cost of committing crime actually gets cheaper. I must, therefore, ask just how seriously this government takes crime deterrence in the ACT. Given that this bill represents only the second review of penalty unit values in 12 years, is its purpose to bring those values up to date so that the punishment better fits the crime or is it simply an opportunity for this government to raise a bit more revenue for its struggling budget?
In relation to the amendment requiring the Attorney-General to review the penalty values at least every four years, I will ask a simple question: if a simple CPI amount is the underlying principle to be applied, why is it being reviewed every four years rather than more frequently? The government’s view is that they have included an amendment for review every four years. This is considered an appropriate interval as it will allow cumulative CPI impacts for movements in the value of other jurisdictions’ penalty unit values to assist in making substantive penalty unit adjustments rather than the more marginal adjustments that would be likely based on an annual review. Perhaps that is appropriate.
The government also seeks to justify a once-per-term review on the basis that the commonwealth has adopted a similar approach. It is, therefore, useful to take guidance from the practices adopted elsewhere, but those processes and practices may not actually be applicable in the ACT. A four-yearly review may not be the best approach for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video