2016-05-04
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am happy to speak on the Fines Reform and Infringements Acts Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes amendments to the new framework for the collection and enforcement of both court fines and infringement fines, which were introduced by the previous government's Fines Reform Act 2014, with the current default commencement date of 30 June this year. The amendments are designed to make the fines system fairer and more equitable for vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians and to reduce rates of offending and imprisonment. The amendments also include delaying the commencement of the act but with the flexibility to proclaim the social justice initiatives earlier.
The amendments include extending the work and development permit scheme; harmonising sentencing powers for both infringement fine defaults and court fine defaults, which at the moment are separate; and further providing for prisoners to convert outstanding registered infringement fines to a term of imprisonment.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank staff of the parliamentary library for the reading pack that they prepared on this bill, which is very informative and helpful.
The Greens will be supporting the bill as we believe it makes important improvements to the fines system and takes action to ensure that the social justice initiatives in the new framework will commence earlier. Provisions in this bill will have significant benefits for struggling individuals while recognising that there are a few areas for further consideration of reform that the Greens are putting forward and will also be moving amendments to.
The key amendments in this bill include extending the work and development permit scheme so that it will apply not only at the early stages of the infringement process for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and who may not be eligible for internal review and are unable to pay their fines, but also to those vulnerable people whose fine matters have reached the enforcement stage. This is in clause 6, which inserts a new part 2A in the Fines Reform Act 2014. Section 10A remains the same as the provisions in the current act, but the new section 10B ensures that the scheme is extended to include infringement fines that are in default at the enforcement stage.
The bill also amends the definition of 'eligible person' under the scheme by removing the requirement for a link between the person's circumstances and the offending that led to that infringement. This is a reform that the Greens support, for under the former coalition government's Fines Reform Bill 2014, based on important feedback from the sector — including Justice Connect Homeless Law, which highlighted that since many vulnerable people do not seek legal advice or engage with the infringement system until their matters have reached enforcement stage, due to a number of factors such as mental health issues, homelessness or abuse — it is important that the work and development permit scheme be made available at this later stage.
We also welcome the introduction of a new power for the director to recommend that the secretary waive the payment of any outstanding amount of the infringement fine owed by an eligible person who is subject to or has been subject to a work and development permit, as well as the change in the definition of eligible person.
In terms of amendments that I will refer to later, we believe that those experiencing family violence should also be included in this program.
There are other amendments in line with the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Council. The bill further aligns the sentencing powers available to a court in respect of infringement fine default with those that are available in respect of court fine defaults under part 3B of the Sentencing Act 1991. This will provide courts with a more consistent set of orders for dealing with fine defaulters regardless of the fine type.
In particular the bill makes imprisonment a sanction of last resort for infringement fine default. This harmonisation will significantly reduce the possibility of imprisonment for fine-related debt. This is a reform that the Greens support not only because there should be consistency in sentencing but also because the reform ensures that imprisonment is a last resort for infringement fine default.
The bill will provide for the ability of a person to apply for an order to serve a period of imprisonment in default of payment of outstanding fines under infringement warrants. This is referred to as time served orders. During the debate on the former government's Fines Reform Bill 2014, the Greens argued against the repeal of section 161A of the Infringements Act 2006, which would prevent prisoners from being able to serve a term of imprisonment in lieu of paying outstanding infringement fines. We welcome this reform to reinstate that ability and to improve it under this current bill. The Sentencing Advisory Council in 2014 reported that:
In one study of Victorian and New South Wales ex-prisoners, persons with debt more commonly returned to prison (50 per cent) than those without debt (30 per cent).
In addition groups such as Homeless Law state that in its experience in working with prisoners the ability to convert fines to terms of imprisonment ensures that prisoners are able to exit prison with a clean slate and maximises the prospects of reintegration into the community. We note that the improved scheme will ensure that the time served is counted from the date the person entered custody, allows time served to include time spent on remand and ensures that registered infringement fines, not just enforceable warrants, as is the current status, can be converted to a time served order.
The bill delays the commencement of the act to 31 December 2017 to allow sufficient time for the government and enforcement agencies to implement a raft of regulatory, operational and organisational changes. It is also necessary, we are told, to enable a new ICT system to be procured to support the fines reform legislation. The Greens support that. However, the bill brings forward some of the measures of the Fines Reform Act 2014 by including them in the Infringements Act 2006 concerning the social justice initiatives in the act, such as the expansion of the work and development permit scheme, the harmonisation of court powers over default fines, the reinstatement of an improved time served scheme for prisoners and changes to the internal review oversight. We strongly support the earlier commencement of these initiatives, and it is hoped that the internal review provisions providing for greater oversight through Fines Victoria, including the development of guidelines, the monitoring of internal review processes and the ability to make a commendation to enforcement agencies regarding their internal review processes, will ensure a consistent and more equitable approach across all agencies in relation to internal reviews based on special and exceptional circumstances.
The bill also clarifies that enforcement should not continue upon receipt of an application for a payment arrangement, or for an enforcement review, or for a work and development permit, or for an attachment of earnings direction, or for an attachment of debts direction, until that application — any of the above — is determined. The Greens support this clarification being made by the bill as it ensures that vulnerable people are not unfairly disadvantaged in the system whereby due to the nature of their circumstances they often do not seek assistance with their infringements until later stages, such as the warrant stage.
While the Greens are very supportive of the provisions in the bill, there are some other areas that we believe could be looked at. For example, the bill should allow for concession-based fines. Fines should be in proportion to what a person can afford. The current system of fines continues to have a disproportionate impact on people with low incomes. As outlined by Homeless Law, an infringement for not having a ticket on public transport is approximately 83 per cent of a Newstart recipient's weekly income, and a fine for being drunk in a public place is 235 per cent of that weekly income, notwithstanding whether that should be an offence that attracts infringement in the first place. In addition enforcement fees and costs are added to the original infringement penalty at different stages of the infringement system so that the original fine can keep going up. A concession scheme was also recommended by the Sentencing Advisory Council in its 2014 report, The Imposition and Enforcement of Court Fines and Infringement Penalties in Victoria, for people experiencing hardship under recommendations 39 and 40 of that report. Provisions for concession-based fines would not only allow for a fairer system but it would also allow for a more efficient system.
We also note that in its submission to the Department of Justice and Regulation review of infringement regulations, the Law Institute of Victoria also recommended that the amount of a person's fine should be proportionate to their income to prevent the criminalisation of poverty. Victoria Legal Aid also supports such a move on the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Council. Furthermore, the infringements working group reported that issuing infringements is not always an appropriate mechanism to address the underlying cause of offending. There are incidences where a warning and linking an offender to support services would be more appropriate than issuing an infringement, for example, for an offence such as being drunk in a public place — and we agree with that. The increasing use of infringements notices also means that community legal centres and Victoria Legal Aid are being swamped with a rising number of people requiring assistance in these matters. This was something that we foreshadowed during the term of the previous government when the use of infringements was increased for a whole range of minor offences.
We believe there should be a reduction in fines for all infringements, not just for public transport fines for children under 18 years of age. Consideration should also be given to taking reforms further in relation to public transport by abolishing public transport fines for all people under 18 years and providing free public transport for people under 18. This was highlighted in the Law Institute of Victoria's submission and in the WEstjustice and co-located Visy Cares Hub youth support worker's report, which stated that public transport infringements and other infringements are extremely problematic for young people because they usually have far less income with which to pay their fines. Offences that impose the same monetary penalty on children as on adults include refusing to move on, being drunk in a public place, disorderly conduct, possession of a graffiti implement and carrying a knife. The Sentencing Advisory Council also made similar recommendations in its 2014 report for fines to be lower for children to ensure that the infringement system is fair and equitable.
The WEstjustice report also recommends abolishing the public transport fine systems for all young people under the age of 18 years. In addition the report recommends free public transport for all passengers up to 18 years and for any passenger who is a secondary student where their parent, carer or guardian is in receipt of Centrelink income or a healthcare card. I have also called for the state government to consider introducing free travel for schoolchildren on Melbourne's trains, trams and buses. Free public transport would be a huge help to household budgets, especially for low-income families, and it will enable many children who are driven to school to be more independent by using public transport.
The WEstjustice report highlights that many low-income families cannot even feed their children breakfast, let alone afford the initial payment for a myki card. A lot of students stay at home and miss out on school until they can top up their myki card, starting a cycle of educational disadvantage. The report also highlights how one child was removed from school by his family due to him accruing myki fines for travelling without a ticket. Some of these fines were due to him travelling to and from school.
The law institute has also added as another consideration the inclusion of hardship provisions for on-the-spot infringements to enable young people up to 18 years of age who experience financial stress to apply for fines to be reduced to a sum proportionate to their income. I add that as a community and as a government we should seriously question the issuing of infringement notices to young people at all, and I have raised this many times in the Parliament. Any further reforms the government is looking at in this area should be looked at very seriously. If you really think about it, it really does not make any sense and is completely inequitable to issue young people who are students — and most young people who have an income have a low income — with infringement notices for minor offences. It is something we should consider doing away with.
I have prepared some proposed amendments, which I am happy to have circulated at this point. I will then outline what they are.
Greens amendments circulated by Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) pursuant to standing orders.
Ms PENNICUIK — The first amendments relate to the work and development permit scheme. We say that this should be more readily available to victims of family violence and that the eligibility criteria for the work and development permits should be amended to provide for this. This is needed in light of the trauma that family violence causes to victims. Given that people with mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction and those experiencing financial hardship or homelessness are eligible for work and development permits, we believe that victims of family violence should also be eligible. We will propose some amendments to that effect. It is also a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence that work and development permits should be available to victims of family violence.
In relation to the work and development permit provision we will propose an amendment where if a previous work and development permit has been cancelled, a person can still apply again. It will also allow for the suspension of a work and development permit and for no enforcement action to be taken if a permit is suspended. Many vulnerable people experience relapses and periods of deterioration in relation to their mental health problems, their substance abuse or homelessness, so it is vital that they have the opportunity to apply for a work and development permit, even if a previous one has been cancelled. They should also be given the opportunity to have the work and development permit suspended while a relapse occurs or if they become ill. The permit would recommence once they recover.
We know that a similar provision exists in section 48O of the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to community correction orders. The secretary may, if an offender is ill or in other exceptional circumstances, suspend for a period the operation of a community correction order or any condition of the order. What we are asking for with this amendment in relation to a suspension of the work and development permit has precedent in other areas of Victorian law where the offending is far more serious. Our amendment to clause 6 will allow for a new work and development permit to be provided even if a previous one has been cancelled.
Other amendments relate to the special circumstances test. We believe that the special circumstances test should be amended in the Infringements Act 2006 so that there is a lower threshold and that the definition of 'special circumstances' should be extended to include family violence. During the debate on the Fines Reform Bill 2014 we asked for the special circumstances definition to be amended so that it will no longer require that a client's special circumstances would result in them being unable to understand or control offending conduct, since this creates rigid evidentiary requirements and therefore it should instead provide for special circumstances contributing to the behaviour.
The definition should also be amended to include 'special circumstance of a person experiencing family violence', since many people get caught up in the infringements system due to family violence.
Currently a person can apply to the Infringements Court to cancel or revoke their enforcement order or infringement warrant if they can prove at the time they received the fine they experienced special circumstances and so this made it difficult to avoid the offending behaviour. Special circumstances currently are: a person had a mental or intellectual disability, disorder, disease or illness; the person had a serious addiction to drugs, alcohol or volatile substances; and the person was homeless. The Royal Commission into Family Violence report recommended under recommendation 113 that the Infringements Act 2006 be amended to add the experience of family violence to those special circumstances. So our amendment is to amend the Infringements Act to ensure that family violence is a special circumstance that contributes to, rather than results in, the offending conduct.
We note also that it was not in the terms of reference of the commission to recommend the test for the application of the other special circumstances be amended to 'contributes to' rather than 'results in'. However, the commission did say that it may be a matter for the director of Fines Victoria to consider, and we are of the view that, in the interests of consistency and fairness, the same test should apply for all the special circumstances under the act. Furthermore, the commission's view is that the current test, if applied to family violence, requires a level of causation that is hard to prove, so it should be the test of 'contributes to'. This adds weight to the argument that the current test of 'results in' is a difficult one to apply, and that is why our amendment will not only apply the words 'contributes to' in terms of special circumstances for family violence but we have prepared the amendment so that it will apply to all the special circumstances. We believe this better reflects the purposes of the whole idea of special circumstances, which is to assist vulnerable people who are caught up in the infringements system.
Other issues that were raised in terms of the royal commission report into family violence, in recommendation 112, were that:
The Department of Justice and Regulation investigate whether the Road Safety Act … (Vic) should be amended so that, if a perpetrator of family violence incurs traffic fines while driving a car registered in the name of the victim, the victim is able to have the fines revoked [within 12 months] by declaring:
They were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offending.
They are a victim of family violence —
or —
They are unable to identify the person in control of the vehicle at the time …
We would support the implementation of that recommendation as well.
That is the gist of our amendments. I probably need to explain a bit further with regard to the amendments. The amendments are as I have outlined, and in particular, as well as adding the condition of experiencing family violence as a special consideration and changing the test from that the experience of family violence 'results in' the behaviour to 'contributes to' the behaviour, the amendments will also apply that test to all the existing special considerations under the act. There is an alternative amendment, such that if that amendment failed, on the issue of family violence being added as a special consideration, the alternative amendment to be put would be to add family violence as a special consideration with the current test of 'results in'. That is an alternative amendment, if that makes sense. We will certainly explain that more during the committee stage.
The Greens will support the bill. We think it can go further, and there is opportunity to extend the provisions of special circumstances, to improve the work and development permits in terms of how they apply to vulnerable people who are unable to pay fines that they have incurred for whatever reasons and the circumstances in their lives have made this difficult, and to make sure that people are not caught up in disadvantage and vulnerability just because they have a lot of infringements hanging over their heads. We support the bill fully, and we would support it even further with our amendments, which we think will improve the scheme as well.
In committee on the same day:
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The Greens will not be able to support the amendment put forward by Mr Rich-Phillips, because basically it changes one of the purposes of the act — to remove the time served scheme. As I mentioned in my contribution to the second-reading debate, the Greens think that the time served scheme is a good scheme, particularly for vulnerable people who will not have the wherewithal to discharge their infringements on release from prison. It is better, I think, that people are released from prison without having debts hanging over their head; it better enables them to reintegrate into the community. Therefore we are not able to support the amendment put forward by Mr Rich-Phillips in this regard.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
1. Clause 4, line 23, after “hardship;” insert “or”.
2. Clause 4, after line 23 insert—
“(v) is the victim of family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008;”.
Amendment 1 is a small amendment. The substantial amendment is amendment 2, which is to insert a definition into clause 4 of the bill. Clause 4 of the bill is the definitions clause in terms of amendments to the Fines Reform Act 2014. It will insert into the definition of 'eligible person' subclause (1)(b)(v) to add as the definition of an eligible person a person who 'is the victim of family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008'. This would add that an eligible person would be such a person in addition to a person who has a mental or intellectual disability, disorder or illness; has an addiction to drugs, alcohol or a volatile substance; is experiencing homelessness; or is experiencing acute financial hardship. My amendment adds that the person is the victim of family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.
We feel that this is a very important amendment. It is certainly an amendment that the Royal Commission into Family Violence recommended be included in the definition of an eligible person. We have the opportunity before us today to do that. I will move a similar amendment later on. Persons who are caught up in family violence and who in some cases have been issued with fines and infringements will be added to the definition. It could be that fines and infringements that have been incurred by perpetrators of family violence have been issued in the name of the victim and in fact the infringement has been issued against the victim.
Nevertheless, there may be many other circumstances, I think, which we are all aware of regarding people living with family violence. They may in fact be experiencing some of the other circumstances included in the definition of an eligible person, such as homelessness in particular but also financial hardship, for example. We think this is an apposite time to be including this in the legislation. We have the legislation before us now. It is a simple amendment to include this in the definition of 'eligible person', and we think we should take the opportunity to do so.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am very grateful that these amendments are being supported by everyone in the chamber, I believe. It will mean, I think, a great addition to the definition of 'eligible person' and include a lot more people who are undergoing hardship.
Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clause 5 agreed to.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
3. Clause 6, page 9, after line 18 insert—
“(3) An application may be made under subsection (1) despite an eligible person having been the subject of one or more work and development permits cancelled under section 10E.”.
4. Clause 6, page 9, line 19, omit “(3)” and insert “(4)”.
5. Clause 6, page 10, line 7, omit “(4)” and insert “(5)”.
Amendment 3 is an amendment to clause 6 of the bill and inserts a new provision in the bill such that an application may be made under subsection (1) with regard to work and development permits so that despite an eligible person having been the subject of one or more permits being cancelled, they could still apply for another work and development permit.
This is because the people that we are dealing with, disadvantaged people and vulnerable people, have ongoing ups and downs in their lives and circumstances which may have made it difficult for them to continue with that work and development permit that they had been granted in the past, and to have had that cancelled, and we are saying that should not prevent them from being eligible for a work and development permit at another time in their lives when the circumstances may be different and to enable people to have the advantage of a work and development permit applied to them in their circumstances. That is basically what the amendment does. It is a simple amendment, really, just to not preclude people from being eligible just because of a prior cancellation.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
7. Clause 6, page 11, line 28, after “vary” insert “(including by suspension)”.
8. Clause 6, page 12, after line 8 insert —
“(3) The Director may vary a work and development permit under subsection (1) by suspending it for a specified period if —
(a) the person who is subject to the work and development permit is ill; or
(b) other exceptional circumstances exist.”.
Amendment 8 is to provide that the director may vary a work and development permit under the subsection by suspending it for a specified period if the person who is subject to the permit is ill or in any other exceptional circumstances. In some ways that amendment really precedes the first amendment but that is because of the way the bill is drawn up. So they are definitely related.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — We have modelled this amendment on section 48O of the Sentencing Act 1991 whereby the secretary may suspend a community correction order if the offender is ill or in other exceptional circumstances. In terms of finding out if someone is ill, that is fairly easy to establish. Other exceptional circumstances are at some discretion of the secretary, but as I said, the secretary is able to do that in terms of a community correction order, which of course is for a more serious offence then an infringement or a fine, and we are suggesting that a similar provision be inserted into this bill.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I understand there are guidelines. I certainly do not have them before me now, and I would assume that in the event this particular provision is supported there would be guidelines for the secretary that I would suggest would be modelled on similar guidelines under the Sentencing Act 1991.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
9. Clause 61, page 59, line 2, after “hardship;” insert “or”.
10. Clause 61, page 59, after line 2 insert—
“(v) is the victim of family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008;”.
The amendments add to the definition of 'eligible person', a provision very similar to the provision that the committee agreed to earlier today. The definitions in clause 61 are inserted into division 2, headed 'Interim arrangements for work and development permits and internal review'.
Just to recap briefly, the insertion of new paragraph (v) would mean that 'eligible person' would include the existing criteria of a person who has a mental or intellectual disability, disorder or illness or an addiction to drugs, alcohol or a volatile substance or is who is experiencing homelessness or financial hardship or, with this amendment, a person who is a victim of family violence. We spoke about the royal commission recommending this addition to the act. I think we all understand the difficulties that are faced by people who are victims of family violence and the need, in terms of this system of fines and infringements and given the exceptional circumstances that people may be experiencing, for them to be included in the act.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
11. Clause 61, page 59, after line 29 insert—
'( ) In section 3(1) of the Infringements Act 2006, in the definition of special circumstances—
(a) for “results in” (where three times occurring) substitute “contributes to”;
(b) in paragraph (c), for “offence;” substitute “offence; or”;
(c) after paragraph (c) insert—
"(d) family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 where the person is a victim of family violence and the family violence contributes to the person being unable to control conduct which constitutes an offence;"
I thank the government and the opposition for the support of my previous amendment. Amendment 11 substitutes in the definition of 'special circumstances' the words 'contributes to' for 'results in' as a test for any of the special circumstances and inserts new paragraph (d) into section 3(1) of the act. There are two parts to this amendment. One adds family violence as a special consideration, and the other lowers the test for special consideration of behaviour, including existing behaviours, that 'results in' the action to 'contributes to'.
This follows the recommendation of the family violence royal commission where this particular amendment was recommended by the commission. The commission recommended when adding family violence as a special consideration that the words 'contributes to' be substituted for the current test of 'results in'. The family violence royal commission also said that even though it was outside its terms of reference, if it had been asked, it would have recommended that the lower threshold test of 'contributes to' be substituted for other tests in special consideration so that all those current special considerations would be subject to the test of 'contributes to'. I hope that is an explanation for the house. I am happy to expand on it. My amendment here is twofold: to put in family violence and to lower the threshold test across all examples of special consideration.
The Deputy President did refer to an alternative amendment. In the event that this amendment is not supported — but I strongly recommend to the committee that it is — the alternative amendment, which is worth foreshadowing now, would be to follow the royal commission's recommendation to include family violence as a special consideration but to leave the current threshold of 'results in', so we would still have the situation where family violence was added as a special consideration but with the current test. That is what I am aiming to do here.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I would like to join the discussion here. Of course the infringements do not just apply to road safety infringements. The government is making the argument that somehow or other that needs to be a package. If I could just read from the Royal Commission into Family Violence's report:
We also agree that although some family violence victims may meet the criteria for special circumstances because their experience of family violence involves, for example homelessness, the requirement to prove that the particular circumstances 'resulted' in an inability to understand or control offending conduct requires a level of causation that is hard to prove.
The commission's preferred option is to amend the Infringements Act to ensure that family violence is a special circumstance that can 'contribute to' rather than 'results in' the offending conduct. Amending the test for application of the other special circumstances (mental or intellectual disability, illness, addiction to drugs or alcohol, or homelessness) to 'contributes to' is not within the commission's terms of reference however, this may be a matter for the director, Fines Victoria, to consider further.
So that is why we have put the amendment forward. I understand what the minister is saying — that in fact there could be an additional penalty to a person over and above an infringement, which could be demerit points or loss of licence, and that that can be rectified by amending the Road Safety Act 1986 — and I would suggest the government do that as soon as possible. But there is no impediment for actually inserting this new provision into the act as recommended by the commission, which referred directly to the Infringements Act 2006 and the special circumstances that we are considering here under this particular part of the bill.
While there may be some connection in terms of penalties that may apply for a certain offending behaviour, what the commission did was turn its attention to the Infringements Act and particularly mention the Infringements Act, and that is what the amendment does. I would suggest that it is in keeping with the amendment that was formerly agreed to. We have the opportunity now to put family violence as a special consideration, and I think we should do so because that is what the commission recommended, and I think it is a good thing. We should do it.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his comments and his consideration of the amendment I put forward. As I said when I read out the actual wording from the royal commission, the royal commission directs its attention to the Infringements Act. As I said, other infringements are not related to the Road Safety Act. I would also say that I agree totally with what Mr Rich-Phillips put very succinctly: that if we can provide some relief to persons in terms of infringements, why not do that? Because we have that in front of us now. Certainly amendments can come through, as I said, to the Road Safety Act with regard to demerit points, loss of licence et cetera. That could be considered — hopefully soon. But I would also suggest that if we do not amend it now, we will just have a bill to amend the Infringements Act coming back, so why not do it now given that it will catch a wider net than just road safety issues?
I take it that Mr Rich-Phillips has accepted the argument about the lowering of the threshold, and I did anticipate that, which is why I have the two amendments. I anticipated that the committee may have some concerns about that because it is not an issue that has had a lot of airing, whereas I think the substantial issue about putting family violence into the act as a special consideration is more straightforward. That is why I have done it in this way. I accept this particular amendment may not succeed. Therefore I will put the further amendment if that is not the case. But going on what the royal commission has recommended, the Greens still want to put our amendment with the lower threshold, but understand others may not agree.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
Clause 61, page 59, after line 29 insert—
'( ) In section 3(1) of the Infringements Act 2006, in the definition of special circumstances—
(a) in paragraph (c), for “offence;” substitute “offence; or”;
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 where the person is a victim of family violence and the family violence results in the person being unable to control conduct which constitutes an offence;"
This is my further amendment to clause 61, which is similar to the amendment that was just lost, and it would insert into section 3, subsection 1, of the Infringements Act, in the definition of 'special circumstances', a new subsection (d):
family violence within the meaning of section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 where the person is a victim of family violence and the family violence results in the person being unable to control conduct which constitutes an offence …
So it would simply add in the definition of 'special circumstances' family violence, in addition to mental illness, drug addiction, homelessness and financial hardship, and with the same test results in.
My previous amendment also included reducing the threshold; this amendment does not, it just keeps the threshold as it already applies for special circumstances and just inserts family violence, as previously in the committee we agreed to.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I just wish to thank the coalition for its support of the amendment and the government for its non-opposition to the amendment.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 62 to 66 agreed to.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
12. Clause 67, page 66, after line 15 insert—
“(3) An application may be made under subsection (1) despite an eligible person having been the subject of one or more work and development permits cancelled under section 27E.”.
13. Clause 67, page 66, line 16, omit “(3)” and insert “(4)”.
14. Clause 67, page 67, line 3, omit “(4)” and insert “(5)”.
I note that amendments 13 and 14 are consequential to amendment 12. Amendment 12 inserts into section 27B a new subsection (3) such that an application may be made under subsection (1) despite an eligible person having been the subject of one or more work and development permits cancelled under section 27E. This is in fact identical to an amendment to the Fines Reform Act 2014 — and this is to the Infringements Act 2006 — that was agreed to earlier today in committee such that notwithstanding that a person may have had a work and development permit cancelled at an earlier stage, they would still be eligible to apply for and be granted another work and development permit at a later stage.
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I move:
15. Clause 67, page 68, after line 25 insert—
“(5) Despite subsections (3) and (4), if a work and development permit is varied by suspension for a period under section 27E, for the period of that suspension, action under this Act must not be taken.”.
16. Clause 67, page 68, line 28, after “vary” insert “(including by suspension)”.
17. Clause 67, page 69, after line 8 insert—
“(3) The Secretary may vary a work and development permit under subsection (1) by suspending it for a specified period if—
(a) the person who is subject to the work and development permit is ill; or
(b) other exceptional circumstances exist.”.
In fact amendment 17 is probably the first amendment. It provides that the secretary may vary a work and development permit by suspending it for a specified period if the person who is subject to the work and development permit is ill or if other exceptional circumstances exist. Amendment 15 provides that in the event that a work and development permit is varied or suspended, then for the period of the suspension enforcement action must not be taken. Again, these are basically identical to the amendments agreed to previously in the committee with regard to the Fines Reform Act 2014 but they apply to the Infringements Act 2006.
To read more of this debate in committee, click here.