Page 2664 - Week 08 - Thursday, 14 August 2014

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


offences. The fees and fines of particular concern for a targeted assistance strategy are infringement notice penalties. These would be increased through regulation and they are not affected by the increase in penalty units.

I have written to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General explaining my view that, despite an increase in penalty units, the government should not increase the amount in infringement notices until work is progressed on the targeted assistance strategy. As I have said, parking and traffic infringements have a flexible payment system but it is not yet available for other kinds of fees and fines. The Chief Minister has agreed to this and I thank the government for their agreement.

In relation to fines that are affected by the increase in penalty units, I want to reiterate some important points that Mr Corbell noted in his tabling speech. These are that the increase in penalty units does not set a mandatory fine; it sets the maximum monetary fine that a court can impose. A court will still take into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. It also has the opportunity to use non-monetary penalties in sentencing an offender, such as a good behaviour order or a community service order.

Despite the fact that I have actually addressed some of the points that Mr Hanson made, I do not think he actually listened to the substantive thought that has gone into the Greens’ view on this legislation. As I outlined in my remarks, there are a number of safeguards built into this, particularly towards more vulnerable people who might find themselves in the space of a financial shock. I think that Mr Corbell and Ms Gallagher have agreed to important safety nets in that regard. On that basis it is quite appropriate that these penalty units do progress over time as part of this budget measure, and that is why the Greens will be supporting this legislation today.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (8.56), in reply: This amendment bill increases the actual dollar penalty amount for all offences that include a penalty of a fine, which means that the relative weight of the penalties is maintained and will ensure that penalties in the ACT continue to be at an appropriate level.

Penalty units outline the maximum monetary fine for a particular offence in ACT law. The current value of a penalty unit in the ACT is defined in section 133 of the Legislation Act as $140 for an individual and $700 for a corporation. The amendment in the bill we are debating tonight increases the value of a penalty unit to $150 for an individual and $750 for a corporation.

This bill will work to achieve equity. Monetary penalties become inappropriately low if they do not keep pace with inflation. This proposal will ensure that penalties in the ACT keep pace with inflation relative to when they were introduced in 2001 and that the maximum financial penalty available retains its relative value. This is particularly relevant when a court imposes financial penalties for regulatory offences in the ACT where corporations are involved.

The increase also reflects similar increases to other regulatory fees as part of this year’s budget and also reflects the general increase in the cost of government


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