Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

STATE TAXATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2011
1732 COUNCIL Thursday, 2 June 2011
Second reading
Ordered that second-reading speech be
incorporated into Hansard on motion of
Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant Treasurer).
Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant
Treasurer) — I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
The infringements trial
This bill provides for the ongoing use of infringement notices
to enforce a number of common summary offences.
Traditionally, offences other than strict liability offences have
not been considered suitable for enforcement by infringement
notice. However, with the growth of the infringements system
both in Victoria and in other jurisdictions, including the
United Kingdom and interstate, together with the continuing
pressure on court hearing resources, the use of infringements
for somewhat more complex offences has grown.
Based on these trends, the ‘infringements trial’, which
commenced in mid-2008, trialled the use of infringement
notices for a small number of offences with varying complex
aspects, with the aim of assessing their suitability for
enforcement by infringement. The trial offences were:
two public order offences: offensive behaviour and
indecent language;
liquor-related offences: consume, supply or possess
liquor on unlicensed premises; permit the consumption,
supply or possession of liquor on unlicensed premises;
and failure by a drunk, quarrelsome or violent person to
leave licensed premises when requested;
permitting or allowing the unauthorised consumption of
liquor on a party bus;
wilful damage of up to $500; and
shop theft of goods valued at up to $600.
The power to issue infringements for these trial offences will
sunset on 30 June 2011. The bill will ensure that infringement
notices can still be issued for these offences after that date.
The evaluation of the trial indicates that the trial has reduced
the volume of cases in relation to the trial offences going to
hearing and at the Magistrates Court and relieved pressure on
the diversion program in relation to these offences. Victoria
Police report that the trial has freed up resources and boosted
their ability to address antisocial behaviour in a timely and
effective manner. It frees up police time for other law
enforcement activities and enables them to more readily issue
penalties against those offenders who deserve them. By
providing police with as many enforcement tools as possible,
Parliament is sending a strong signal that people who engage
in criminal behaviour can expect to be dealt with under the
law.
The trial also included two other offences — shop theft and
wilful damage. Instead of making these offences infringeable
on an ongoing basis, the bill extends the trial period for these
two offences. This is because evaluation indicates that further
experience is needed and further consideration needs to be
given to the impact of using infringement notices for these
offences before it can finally be determined whether their
ongoing use is appropriate. These were the most complex
offences in the trial, with shop theft involving elements of
dishonesty and wilful damage involving a range of potential
victims. In the case of shop theft, more work needs to be done
on understanding offending patterns and the consequences of
issuing infringement notices. The data from the trial suggests
that people receiving shop theft infringements are repeat
offenders with a wide spectrum of offences on their record.
Further evaluation will include the views of key stakeholders
and the impact of expiated shop theft offences not going on a
person’s criminal record. In the case of wilful damage, more
work needs to be done to determine whether the needs and
rights of the victim of the damage are being taken into
account as they should be when the infringements process is
used.
CAYPINS amendment
The bill also makes a minor technical amendment to
clause 17(1)(d) of schedule 3 to the Children, Youth and
Families Act 2005 (CYF act), to replace the word ‘registrar’
with ‘court’. This amendment will clarify that it is the court,
rather than a registrar, which may cancel an infringement
notice under part 3 of schedule 3 of the CYF act.
Part 3 of schedule 3 provides that while applications for
cancellation are made to the registrar, it is the court that must
determine the application and, if appropriate, cancel the
infringement notice. The amendment will therefore promote
consistency within schedule 3 of the CYF act and remove any
potential confusion regarding the roles of officers of the court.
I commend the bill to the house.
Debate adjourned for Hon. M. P. PAKULA
(Western Metropolitan) on motion of Mr Leane.
Debate adjourned until Thursday, 9 June.
STATE TAXATION ACTS AMENDMENT
BILL 2011
Introduction and first reading
Received from Assembly.
Read first time on motion of
Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant Treasurer).
Statement of compatibility
Hon. G. K. RICH-PHILLIPS (Assistant Treasurer)
tabled following statement in accordance with
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights
and Responsibilities (the charter act), I make this statement of